Ontario’s top court defines “material change” in securities litigation

In a pair of companion decisions released on May 24, 2023 (Markowich v. Lundin Mining and Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.) the Court of Appeal for Ontario respectively overturned and upheld Superior Court of Justice decisions refusing leave to proceed with proposed class actions under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act. Both decisions turned on whether certain events met the definition of a “material change” that the companies should have publicly disclosed sooner. In Lundin Mining, the events were pit wall instability and a rockslide at one of the defendant mining company’s Chilean open pit mines. In SNC-Lavalin, the event was ... [more] Full article
Ontario’s top court overturns decision refusing leave to proceed with misrepresentation claim against mining company
In a decision released on May 24, 2023 in Markowich v. Lundin Mining, the Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned a Superior Court of Justice decision refusing leave to proceed ... [more] Full article
SCC agrees to hear appeal on whether Securities Commission penalties can survive bankruptcy
On March 31, 2023, Canada’s top court granted leave to appeal from the B.C. Court of Appeal’s decision in Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission) that a securities commission administrative ... [more] Full article
Court of Appeal Confirms No Duty to Disclose Beneficiary Changes
If a client asks their investment dealer to change their account beneficiary, does the dealer need to tell the beneficiary? Firms will be relieved by the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ... [more] Full article
- Superior Court refuses leave to securities class action based on the difference between “Material Facts” and “Material Changes”
- Ontario’s top court reinstates securities class action against Cannabis company
- Fiduciary Duty for advisors not created by “Best Interest” standard alone
- Ontario Affirms Gatekeeping Function Of Robust Leave Test For Securities Class Actions