Court File No. CV-12-9667-00-CL ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE COMMERCIAL LIST IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES’ CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, AS AMENDED AND IN THE MATTER OF A PLAN OF COMPROMISE AND ARRANGEMENT OF SINO-FOREST CORPORATION Court File No.: CV-11-431153-00CP ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: THE TRUSTEES OF THE LABOURERS’ PENSION FUND OF CENTRAL AND EASTERN CANADA, THE TRUSTEES OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 793 PENSION PLAN FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS IN ONTARIO, SJUNDE AP-FONDEN, DAVID GRANT and ROBERT WONG Plaintiffs - and - SINO-FOREST CORPORATION, ERNST & YOUNG LLP, BDO LIMITED (formerly known as BDO MCCABE LO LIMITED), ALLEN T.Y. CHAN, W. JUDSON MARTIN, KAI KIT POON, DAVID J. HORSLEY, WILLIAM E. ARDELL, JAMES P. BOWLAND, JAMES M.E. HYDE, EDMUND MAK, SIMON MURRAY, PETER WANG, GARRY J. WEST, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (CANADA), INC., TD SECURITIES INC., DUNDEE SECURITIES CORPORATION, RBC DOMINION SECURITIES INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL INC., CIBC WORLD MARKETS INC., MERRILL LYNCH CANADA INC., CANACCORD FINANCIAL LTD., MAISON PLACEMENTS CANADA INC., CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED (successor by merger to Banc of America Securities LLC) Defendants Proceeding under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 BOOK OF AUTHORITIES OF THE PLAINTIFFS FEE APPROVAL (Returnable May 11,2015) May 1,2015 KOSKIE MINSKY LLP 20 Queen Street West, Suite 900 Toronto, ON M5H 3R3 Kirk Baert Jonathan Ptak Tel: 416.977.8353 / Fax: 416.977.3316 PALIARE ROLAND ROSENBERG ROTHSTEIN LLP 250 University Avenue, Suite 501 Toronto, ON M5H 3E5 Ken Rosenberg Massimo Stamino Tel: 416.646.4300 / Fax: 416.646.4301 SISKINDS LLP 680 Waterloo Street London, ON N6A3V8 A. Dimitri Lascaris Charles M. Wright Tel: 519.672.2121 / Fax: 519.672.6065 Lawyers for the Ad Hoc Committee of Purchasers of the Applicant’s Securities, including the Representative Plaintiffs in the Ontario Class Action TO : THE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Labourers ’ Pension Fund o f Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest Corporation, 2012 ONSC 1924 2. The Trustees o f the Labourers ’ Pension Fund o f Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino- Forest Corporation, 2012 ONSC 2937 3. Sino-Forest Corporation (Re), 2012 ONSC 7041 4. Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada (Trustees o f, 2013 ONCA 456 5. Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada (Trustees o f v. Sino-Forest Corp., 2013 ONSC 1078 6. Invesco Canada Ltd. v. Sino-Forest Corp., [2013] S.C.C.A. No. 395 (S.C.C.) 7. Labourer's Pension Fund o f Central and Eastern Canada (Trustees o f v. Sino-Forest Corp., 2014 ONSC 62 8. Baker (Estate) v. Sony BMGMusic (Canada) Inc., 2011 ONSC 7105 9. Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, 2013 ONSC 7686 10. Cassano v. Toronto-Dominion Bank, [2009] O.J. No. 2922 (S.C.J.) 11. Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society, [2000] O.J. No. 2374 (S.C.J.) 12. Sayers v. Shaw Cablesystems Ltd., 2011 ONSC 962 13. Gagne v. Silcorp. Ltd, [1998] O.J. No. 4182 (C.A.) 14. Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society, 2000 BCSC 971 15. Helm v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Systems Ltd., 2012 ONSC 2602 16. Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2011 ONSC 3292 17. Abdulrahim v. Air France, 2011 ONSC 512 18. Ainslie v. Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ,2010 ONSC 4294 19. Robertson v. ProQuest LLC, 2011 ONSC 2629 20. Osmun v. Cadbury Adams Canada Inc., 2010 ONSC 2752 21. Pichette v. Toronto Hydro, 2010 ONSC 4060 22. Robertson v. Thomson Canada Ltd., [2009] O.J. No. 2650 (S.C.J.) 23. Martin v. Barrett, [2008] O.J. No. 2105 (S.C.J.) 24. Order of Justice Morawetz dated December 27,2013 25. Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Class Actions, vol. 3 The Trustees of the Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada et al. v. Sino-Forest Corporation et al. [Indexed as: Labourers' Pension Fund of Central and Eastern Canada v. Sino-Forest Corp.] 110 O.R. (3d) 173 2012 2012 ONSC 1924 (CanLI!) 2012 ONSC 1924 Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Perell J. March 26, 2012 Civil procedure — Class proceedings — Certification — Plaintiffs bringing proposed class action and moving for leave to assert causes of action pursuant to ss. 138.3 and 138.8 of Securities Act — Leave motion and certification motion ordered to be heard together — Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, ss. 138.3, 138.8. Civil procedure -- Class proceedings — Pleadings — Plaintiffs bringing proposed class action and moving for leave to assert causes of action pursuant to ss. 138.3 and 138.8 of Securities Act — Defendants objecting to delivering statement of defence before leave motion and certification motion were heard — Pleadings should generally be completed before certification motion — Defendants who delivered affidavit pursuant to s. 138.8(2) of Securities Act ordered to deliver statement of defence — Delivery of statement of defence not precluding defendant from bringing Rule 21 motion at leave and certification motion or from contesting that plaintiffs had shown cause of action — Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, ss. 138.3, 138.8. The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against the defendants, alleging that the defendants made misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets. They also claimed against some of the defendants for a corporate oppression remedy, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy and unjust enrichment. They had moved for leave to assert causes of action pursuant to ss. 138.3 and 138.8 under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs brought a motion for an order requiring the defendants to deliver a statement of defence. The defendants objected to filing a statement of defence before the certification motion and before leave was granted pursuant to s. 138.8 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs also sought to have the certification motion and the leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act heard together. The defendants submitted that a series of motions should be scheduled, beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 (of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194) motions, followed by the certification motion. Held, the motion should be granted in part. It was the clear intention of the legislature that the pleadings be closed before certification. It would not be contrary to law or a denial of due process to order the pre­ certification delivery of a statement of defence. While it would be inappropriate to order all the defendants to deliver a statement of defence to a secondary market claim under the Securities Act, it would be proper to order any defendant who delivered an affidavit pursuant to s. 138.8(2) of the Act to also deliver a statement of defence. Any other defendant may, if so advised, deliver a statement of defence. The delivery of the statement of defence was not a fresh step, and any defendant who did so was not precluded from bringing a Rule 21 motion at the leave and certification motion or from contesting that the plaintiffs [pagel74] had shown a cause of action under s. 5(1)(a) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6. It would be fair and efficient to hear the certification motion and the leave motion together. If a sequential approach were adopted, there would be appeals at each stage, leading to increased delay. Cases referred to Pennyfeather v. Tiraminco Ltd. (2011), 107 O.R. (3d) 201, [2011] O.J. No. 3286, 2011 ONSC 4257; Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., [2012] O.J. No. 719, 2012 ONCA 107; Sharma v. Timminco Ltd., [2010] O.J. No. 469, 2010 ONSC 790, consd Other cases referred to 1176560 Ontario Ltd. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Co. of Canada Ltd. (2004), 70 O.R. (3d) 182, [2004] O.J. No. 865, 184 O.A.C. 298, 50 C.P.C. (5th) 25, 129 A.C.W.S. (3d) 455 (Div. Ct.), affg (2002), 62 O.R. (3d) 535, [2002] O.J. No. 4781, [2002] O.T.C. 963, 28 C.P.C. (5th) 135, 118 A.C.W.S. (3d) 530 (S.C.J.) [Leave to appeal granted (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 2012 ONSC 1924 (CanLI!) 42, [2003] O.J. No. 1089, 169 O.A.C. 343, 121 A.C.W.S. (3d) 655 (S.C.J.)]; Ainslie v. CV Technologies Inc. (2008), 93 O.R. (3d) 200, [2008] O.J. No. 4891, 304 D.L.R. (4th) 713, 171 A.C.W.S. (3d) 964 (S.C.J.) [Leave to appeal granted [2009] O.J. No. 730 (Div. Ct.)]; Anderson v. Wilson (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 673, [1999] O.J. No. 2494, 175 D.L.R. (4th) 409, 122 O.A.C. 69, 36 C.P.C. (4th) 17, 89 A.C.W.S. (3d) 441 (C.A.) [Leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused [1999] S.C.C.A. No. 476]; Bell v. Booth Centennial Healthcare Linen Services, [2006] O.J. No. 4646, 153 A.C.W.S. (3d) 828 (S.C.J.); Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation, [2010] O.J. No. 314, 2010 ONSC 146; Cetinalp v. Casino, [2009] O.J. No. 5015 (S.C.J.); Dobbie v. Arctic Glacier Income Fund, [2011] O.J. No. 932, 2011 ONSC 25, 3 C.P.C. (7th) 261; Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [2004] 1 S.C.R. 629, [2004] S.C.J. No. 21, 2004 SCC 25, 237 D.L.R. (4th) 385, 319 N.R. 38, J.E.