The Supreme Court of Canada announced today that it will hear
appeals in a trilogy of Ontario securities class action cases:
Green v. CIBC, Silver v. IMAX and Celestica v.
Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund.
All three of these cases address how the three year limitation
period under the Ontario Securities Act applicable to
secondary market class actions should be applied. In order to bring
a secondary market class action under the Ontario Securities
Act, a plaintiff must first obtain leave of the court and,
pursuant to section 138.14, the action must be commenced
within three years. In 2012, the Ontario Court of Appeal
interpreted this limitation period to mean that plaintiffs must
obtain leave from the court to commence the action within the three
year period (Sharma v. Timminco). This decision was
generally welcomed by defendants but attracted much concern among
plaintiffs' class action counsel. Earlier this year, in
Green v. CIBC, a rare five judge panel of the Ontario
Court of Appeal reversed its own decision in Timminco
(with two companion decisions in Silver v. IMAX and
Celestica v. Millwright). The Court of Appeal found that
articulating an intention to seek leave to commence the secondary
market claim under the Securities Act was sufficient to
suspend the limitation period, even though leave had not
yet been granted to commence such an action.
The Supreme Court of Canada will now have the final say on how
this three year limitation period is to be applied. It's
possible that the Supreme Court could revert to the Court of
Appeal's position in Timminco, uphold the Court of
Appeal's existing decision in Green v. CIBC, or
perhaps articulate its own interpretation of this limitation
period. Regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court's decision
will have an impact on numerous securities class actions already
before the courts and those to come.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
It's not often that our little blog intersects with such titanic struggles as the U.S. presidential race – and by using the term "titanic" I certainly don't mean to suggest that anything disastrous is in the future.
J.J. v. C.C., is an interesting case in which the court held that an automotive garage owes a duty to minor children to secure the vehicles on the premises by locking the cars and safely storing the car keys...
In Irwin v. Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2015 ABCA 396, the Alberta Court of Appeal found that the "ABVMA" failed to afford procedural fairness to a veterinarian undergoing an incapacity assessment.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).