Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 478 N.R. 202 (SCC)

JudgeMcLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté, JJ.
CourtSupreme Court (Canada)
Case DateDecember 04, 2015
JurisdictionCanada (Federal)
Citations(2015), 478 N.R. 202 (SCC);2015 SCC 60

Green v. CIBC (2015), 478 N.R. 202 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Temp. Cite: [2015] N.R. TBEd. DE.001

Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (appellant) v. Howard Green and Anne Bell (respondents)

Gerald McCaughey, Tom Woods, Brian G. Shaw and Ken Kilgour (appellants) v. Howard Green and Anne Bell (respondents) and Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights, Shareholder Association for Research and Education, Ontario Securities Commission and Insurance Bureau of Canada (interveners)

IMAX Corporation, Richard L. Gelfond, Bradley J. Wechsler, Francis T. Joyce, Neil S. Braun, Kenneth G. Copland, Garth M. Girvan, David W. Leebron and Kathryn A. Gamble (appellants) v. Marvin Neil Silver and Cliff Cohen (respondents) and Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)

Celestica Inc., Stephen W. Delaney and Anthony P. Puppi (appellants) v. Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund (respondent)

Celestica Inc., Stephen W. Delaney and Anthony P. Puppi (appellants) v. Nabil Berzi (respondent)

Celestica Inc., Stephen W. Delaney and Anthony P. Puppi (appellants) v. Huacheng Xing (respondent) and Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners)

(35807; 35811; 35813; 2015 SCC 60; 2015 CSC 60)

Indexed As: Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al.

Supreme Court of Canada

McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté, JJ.

December 4, 2015.

Summary:

In three separate class actions (CIBC, IMAX and Celestica), the representative plaintiffs claimed damages under the common law and under s. 138.3 of the Securities Act for misrepresentation respecting shares trading in the secondary market. In each case, the statement of claim for the common law action was issued and served within the three year limitation period for bringing the statutory claim (s. 138.14), but leave to commence the statutory claim (s. 138.8) was not obtained within that three year period. In Sharma v. Timminco Ltd. et al. (2012), 289 O.A.C. 19 (C.A.), the court held that the statutory claim was barred if leave to commence the claim was not obtained within the three year period. In CIBC ([2012] O.T.C. Uned. 3637), the court held that it was bound by Sharma and there was no relief from the expiration of the limitation period. In IMAX ([2012] O.T.C. Uned. 4881), the court held that the leave that had been granted to commence the action applied nunc pro tunc within the limitation period. In Celestica, the court held that leave could be granted after the expiry of the limitation period by applying the doctrine of special circumstances. All three decisions were appealed. The appeals were heard together by a five-judge panel of the court to allow the court to decide whether to reconsider the decision in Sharma.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported (2014), 314 O.A.C. 315, reconsidered Sharma and overruled it. In CIBC, the order dismissing the class action as statute-barred was set aside. In the IMAX and Celestica actions, the court confirmed that the actions were not statute-barred by Sharma. The court held that a representative plaintiff who had pleaded an intention to seek leave in respect of a s. 138.3 claim within the limitation period has "asserted" a cause of action within the meaning of s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act even before filing a motion seeking leave. The defendants appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada resolved the three appeals as follows: (1) the CIBC appeal was dismissed. Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Gascon, JJ., held that the statutory action was not time-barred. McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell and Côté, JJ., all found that the statutory action was time-barred, but Cromwell, J., would grant leave nunc pro tunc; (2) the IMAX appeal was dismissed. Moldaver, Karakatsanis and Gascon, JJ., held that the statutory action was not time-barred. McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell and Côté, JJ., all found that the statutory action was time-barred. McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein and Côté, JJ., would allow the appeal respecting the defendants who were not parties to the original statement of claim, but would grant leave nunc pro tunc and dismiss the appeal respecting the defendants who were parties to the original statement of claim. Cromwell, J., would grant leave nunc pro tunc and dismiss the appeal respecting all defendants; (3) the Celestica appeal was allowed. McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell and Côté, JJ., held that the statutory action was time-barred. Moldaver, Karaksanis and Gascon, JJ., held that the statutory action was not time-barred and would have dismissed the appeal.

Limitation of Actions - Topic 4403

Statutory causes of action - When time begins to run (incl. suspension) - [See first Securities Regulation - Topic 5 ].

Limitation of Actions - Topic 9616

Enlargement of time period - Application for - Special circumstances - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the equitable doctrine of special circumstances "allows a court to temper the potentially harsh and unfair effects of limitation periods by allowing a plaintiff to add a cause of action or a party to the statement of claim after the expiry of the relevant limitation period" - Section 138.3 of the Securities Act authorized a civil action for misrepresentation if commenced within three years of the misrepresentation being made (s. 138.14) - Section 138.8 required that leave to commence the claim be obtained within that three year limitation period - Section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act provided that any limitation period applicable to "a cause of action asserted in a class proceeding" was suspended on the commencement of the class proceeding - Three class actions (CIBC, IMAX and Celestica) were commenced within the limitation period (statements of claim filed and served), but leave was never obtained - In CIBC, a motion for leave had been filed before the limitation period expired - In IMAX, a motion had been filed and argued before the limitation period expired - In Celestica, there was no motion for leave prior to the limitation period expiring - The court held that "The doctrine of special circumstances is of no avail to any of the plaintiffs in the three cases before us. This is because neither the limitation period in s. 138.14 OSA nor the leave requirement in s. 138.8 OSA can be defeated by amending the pleadings to include a statutory claim under s. 138.3. In all three cases, this doctrine does not provide the plaintiffs with an effective remedy, since it cannot on its own overcome the leave requirements of s. 138.8 OSA" - See paragraphs 112 to 117.

Practice - Topic 209

Persons who can sue and be sued - Individuals and corporations - Status or standing - Class or representative actions - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada rejected an interpretation of sections of the Ontario Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act that would have given more rights to a plaintiff proceeding by way of a class action than a plaintiff suing in his or her personal capacity - The court stated that "class actions are merely procedural vehicles, designed to extend the substantive rights of the representative plaintiff to the entire class, not to create substantive rights for the class which an individual plaintiff would not otherwise enjoy since they do not exist. ... a class action provision cannot operate to create or modify substantive legal rights" - See paragraphs 49, 62.

Practice - Topic 5409

Judgments and orders - General - Nunc pro tunc - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that "the occurrence of a slip or oversight is not the only circumstance in which a court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction [to issue an order nunc pro tunc] ... the courts have identified the following non-exhaustive factors in determining whether to exercise their inherent jurisdiction to grant such an order: (1) the opposing party will not be prejudiced by the order; (2) the order would have been granted had it been sought at the appropriate time, such that the timing of the order is merely an irregularity; (3) the irregularity is not intentional; (4) the order will effectively achieve the relief sought or cure the irregularity; (5) the delay has been caused by an act of the court; and (6) the order would facilitate access to justice ... courts have been willing to grant nunc pro tunc orders where leave is sought within the limitation period but not obtained until after the period expires ... Thus, subject to the equitable factors mentioned above, an order granting leave to proceed with an action can theoretically be made nunc pro tunc where leave is sought prior to the expiry of the limitation period" - See paragraphs 89, 90, 92, 93.

Practice - Topic 5409

Judgments and orders - General - Nunc pro tunc - Section 138.3 of the Securities Act authorized a civil action for misrepresentation if commenced within three years of the misrepresentation being made (s. 138.14) - Section 138.8 required that leave to commence the claim be obtained within that three year limitation period - Section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act provided that any limitation period applicable to "a cause of action asserted in a class proceeding" was suspended on the commencement of the class proceeding - Three class actions (CIBC, IMAX and Celestica) were commenced within the limitation period (statements of claim filed and served), but leave was never obtained - In CIBC, a motion for leave had been filed before the limitation period expired - In IMAX, a motion had been filed and argued before the limitation period expired - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the statutory actions were barred by the expiration of the three year limitation period without leave to commence the claims being first obtained - However, a majority of the court (4:3) would grant leave to commence the statutory action nunc pro tunc - See paragraphs 85 to 94.

Practice - Topic 8871

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Application for - [See both Securities Regulation - Topic 5 ].

Practice - Topic 8871.2

Appeals - Leave to appeal - Whether required (incl. extension of time for determining) - [See both Securities Regulation - Topic 5 ].

Securities Regulation - Topic 5

General principles - Civil action for breach of statute - Section 138.3 of the Securities Act authorized a civil action for misrepresentation if commenced within three years of the misrepresentation being made (s. 138.14) - Section 138.8 required that leave to commence the claim be obtained within that three year limitation period - Section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act provided that any limitation period applicable to "a cause of action asserted in a class proceeding" was suspended on the commencement of the class proceeding - Three class actions (CIBC, IMAX and Celestica) were commenced within the limitation period (statements of claim filed and served), but leave was never obtained - In CIBC, a motion for leave had been filed before the limitation period expired - In IMAX, a motion had been filed and argued before the limitation period expired - The Ontario Court of Appeal held that "when a representative plaintiff in a class action brought within the Securities Act s. 138.14 limitation period, also pleads a cause of action based on s. 138.3 of the Securities Act, together with the facts that found the claim, and further pleads the intent to seek leave to commence an action under the Securities Act, then that claim has been 'asserted' for the purpose of s. 28 of the [Class Proceedings Act], and the limitation period is thereby suspended for all class members" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "pleading an intention to seek leave in respect of a s. 138.3 OSA claim in a class proceeding together with a common law cause of action amounts to neither the assertion of the statutory cause of action nor the commencement of a class proceeding for that statutory case of action under s. 28 CPA" - Section 28 of the Class Proceedings Act applied to suspend the limitation period in s. 138.14 of the Ontario Securities Act only when the action was commenced, which was when leave was granted under s. 138.8 - The court stated that "under s. 138.8(1) OSA, a statutory action commenced without first having obtained leave is a nullity and a statutory claim under Part XXIII.1 OSA cannot be validly commenced without leave of the court. Therefore, the limitation period cannot be suspended in favour of the class members under s. 28 CPA before leave is granted. ... To hold that s. 28 CPA operates to suspend a limitation period for a statutory claim under s. 138.3 OSA before leave is obtained would be to circumvent the carefully calibrated purposive balance struck by the limits to statutory action provided for in Part XXIII.1 OSA. Such an interpretation would render s. 138.8 OSA ineffective." - See paragraphs 46 to 83, 130.

Securities Regulation - Topic 5

General principles - Civil action for breach of statute - Section 138.3 of the Securities Act authorized a civil action for misrepresentation if commenced within three years of the misrepresentation being made (s. 138.14) - Section 138.8 required that leave to commence the claim be obtained within that three year limitation period - Leave could be granted only where "(a) the action is being brought in good faith; and (b) there is a reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved at trial in favour of the plaintiff" - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a "reasonable possibility" of success meant that "there must be a 'reasonable or realistic chance that it will succeed'" - See paragraphs 118 to 123.

Cases Noticed:

Sharma v. Timminco Ltd. et al. (2012), 289 O.A.C. 19; 109 O.R.(3d) 569; 2012 ONCA 107, refd to. [para. 4].

Logan v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al. (2004), 188 O.A.C. 294; 71 O.R.(3d) 451 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

Morrison v. national Australia Bank Ltd. (2010), 561 U.S. 247, refd to. [para. 35].

Méthot v. Montreal Transportation Commission, [1972] S.C.R. 387, refd to. [para. 51].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559; 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 55].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 55].

Novak et al. v. Bond, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 808; 239 N.R. 134; 122 B.C.A.C. 161; 200 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 57].

K.M. v. H.M., [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6; 142 N.R. 321; 57 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 57].

Coulson v. Citigroup Global Markets Canada Inc. et al., (2010), 92 C.P.C.(6th) 301; 2010 ONSC 1596, affd. (2012), 288 O.A.C. 355; 2012 ONCA 108, refd to. [para. 60].

Logan v. Canada (Minister of Health) et al., [2003] O.T.C. 118; 2003 CanLII 20308 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61].

Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc. et al., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214; 412 N.R. 1; 2011 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 62].

Barrette et al. v. St. Lawrence Cement Inc. et al., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 392; 382 N.R. 105; 2008 SCC 64, refd to. [para. 62].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 62].

Turner v. London and South-Western Railway Co. (1874), L.R. 17 Eq. 561, refd to. [para. 87].

Gunn v. Harper (1902), 3 O.L.R. 693 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Young v. Gravenhurst (Town) (1911), 24 O.L.R. 467 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 87].

Hubert v. DeCamillis (1963), 41 D.L.R.(2d) 495 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 87].

Monahan v. Nelson (2000), 137 B.C.A.C. 251; 223 W.A.C. 251; 76 B.C.L.R.(3d) 109; 2000 BCCA 297, refd to. [para. 87].

Medina v. Bravo (2008), 87 B.C.L.R.(4th) 369; 2008 BCSC 1307, refd to. [para. 87].

Hislop et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 429; 358 N.R. 197; 222 O.A.C. 324; 2007 SCC 10, refd to. [para. 88].

New Alger Mines Ltd. v. Thorne Riddell Inc. (1986), 14 O.A.C. 25; 54 O.R.(2d) 562 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Gallo v. Beber et al. (1998), 116 O.A.C. 340 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Krueger v. Raccah (1981), 12 Sask.R. 130 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 90].

Parker v. Atkinson (1993), 104 D.L.R.(4th) 29 (Ont. U.F.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Hogarth v. Hogarth, [1945] 3 D.L.R. 78 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 90].

Montego Forest Products Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re (1998), 107 O.A.C. 77; 37 O.R.(3d) 651 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 90].

Couture v. Bouchard (1892), 21 S.C.R. 281, refd to. [para. 90].

Westman v. Gyselinck (2014), 308 Man.R.(2d) 306; 2014 MBQB 174, refd to. [para. 90].

Hryniak v. Mauldin, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; 453 N.R. 51; 314 O.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 7, refd to. [para. 90].

McKenna Estate v. Marshall, [2005] O.T.C. 905; 37 R.P.R.(4th) 222 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 90].

Holst v. Grenier et al. (1987), 65 Sask.R. 257 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 91].

C.I.B.C. Mortgage Corp. v. Manson and Enger (1984), 32 Sask.R. 303 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 91].

Reza v. Minister of Employment and Immigration, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; 167 N.R. 282; 72 O.A.C. 348, refd to. [para. 95].

Soulos v. Korkontzilas et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 217; 212 N.R. 1; 100 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 95].

Joseph v. Paramount Canada's Wonderland (2008), 241 O.A.C. 29; 90 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 469, refd to. [para. 108].

Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services et al. v. Langston et al. (2009), 250 O.A.C. 129; 94 O.R.(3d) 401; 2009 ONCA 196, refd to. [para. 108].

Dugal et al. v. Manulife Financial Corp. et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1764; 2011 ONSC 1764, refd to. [para. 108].

Weldon v. Neal (1887), 19 Q.B.D. 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 112].

Basarsky v. Quinlan, [1972] S.C.R. 380, refd to. [para. 113].

Frohlick et al. v. Pinkerton Canada Ltd. et al. (2008), 232 O.A.C. 146; 88 O.R.(3d) 401; 2008 ONCA 3, refd to. [para. 114].

Theratechnologies Inc. et al. v. 121851 Canada Inc., [2015] 2 S.C.R. 106; 470 N.R. 123; 2015 SCC 18, refd to. [para. 120].

Thibodeau v. Air Canada, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 340; 463 N.R. 231; 2014 SCC 67, refd to. [para. 186].

Lévis (City) v. Fraternité des policiers de Lévis Inc. et al., [2007] 1 S.C.R. 591; 359 N.R. 199; 2007 SCC 14, refd to. [para. 186].

Letang v. Cooper, [1965] 1 Q.B. 232 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 188].

Markevich v. Minister of National Revenue, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 94; 300 N.R. 321; 2003 SCC 9, refd to. [para. 188].

Dilollo (Bankrupt), Re (2013), 310 O.A.C. 282; 117 O.R.(3d) 81; 2013 ONCA 550, refd to. [para. 188].

Markson v. MBNA Canada Bank (2007), 224 O.A.C. 71; 85 O.R.(3d) 321; 2007 ONCA 334, refd to. [para. 204].

Cassano et al. v. Toronto-Dominion Bank (2007), 230 O.A.C. 224; 87 O.R.(3d) 401; 2007 ONCA 781, refd to. [para. 204].

Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia (2012), 293 O.A.C. 204; 111 O.R.(3d) 346; 2012 ONCA 443, refd to. [para. 204].

Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. et al. v. Microsoft Corp. et al., [2013] 3 S.C.R. 477; 450 N.R. 201; 2013 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 204].

Statutes Noticed:

Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c. 6, sect. 28 [para. 16].

Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-5, sect. 138.8(1) [para. 13]; sect. 138.14(a) [para. 14]; sect. 138.14(2) [para. 43].

Counsel:

Sheila R. Block and James C. Tory, for the appellant, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce;

Benjamin Zarnett, David D. Conklin and Jonathan Edge, for the appellants, Gerald McCaughey et al.;

R. Paul Steep, Dana M. Peebles and Brandon Kain, for the appellants, IMAX Corporation et al.;

Nigel Campbell, Andrea Laing and Ryan A. Morris, for the appellants, Celestica Inc., Stephen W. Delaney and Anthony P. Puppi;

Peter R. Jervis, Joel P. Rochon, Sakie Tambakos and Remissa Hirji, for the respondents, Howard Green and Anne Bell;

A. Dimitri Lascaris, William V. Sasso, Michael Robb, Daniel E. H. Bach and Serge Kalloghlian, for the respondents, Marvin Neil Silver and Cliff Cohen;

Kirk M. Baert and Celeste B. Poltak, for the respondents, Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund, Nabil Berzi and Huacheng Xing;

Written submissions only by Margaret L. Waddell and Denise Cooney, for the intervener, the Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights;

Bonnie Roberts Jones, for the intervener, the Shareholder Association for Research and Education;

Anna Perschy and Amanda Heydon, for the intervener, the Ontario Securities Commission;

Alan L. W. D'Silva, Daniel S. Murdoch and Sinziana R. Hennig, for the intervener, the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Torys, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce;

Goodmans, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, Gerald McCaughey et al.;

McCarthy Tétrault, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, IMAX Corporation et al.;

Blake, Cassels & Graydon, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellants, Celestica Inc., Stephen W. Delaney and Anthony P. Puppi;

Rochon Genova, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Howard Green and Anne Bell;

Siskinds, London, Ontario; Sutts Strosberg, Windsor, Ontario, for the respondents, Marvin Neil Silver and Cliff Cohen;

Koskie Minsky, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondents, Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension Trust Fund, Nabil Berzi and Huacheng Xing;

Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights;

Groia & Company, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Shareholder Association for Research and Education;

Ontario Securities Commission, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Ontario Securities Commission;

Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervener, the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

This appeal was heard on February 9, 2015, before McLachlin, C.J.C, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon and Côté JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 4, 2015, the judgment of the Court was delivered in both official languages and the following opinions were filed:

Côté, J. (McLachlin, C.J.C., and Rothstein, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 1 to 129;

Cromwell, J. - see paragraphs 130 to 159;

Karakatsanis, J. (Moldaver and Gascon, JJ., concurring) - see paragraphs 160 to 214.

To continue reading

Request your trial
208 practice notes
  • Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 16, 2021
    ...Gold Corp., 2014 ONCA 901 , aff’g 2013 ONSC 6864 ; Green v. CIBC, 2014 ONCA 90 , var’g 2012 ONSC 3637 , aff’d 2015 SCC 60; Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd., 2016 ONSC 1903 at para. [20] CIBC v. Green, 2015 SCC 60 at paras. 120-123, 147, 212; Theratechnologies in......
  • Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al., (2015) 346 O.A.C. 204 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 4, 2015
    ...and Canadian Foundation for Advancement of Investor Rights and Ontario Securities Commission (interveners) (35807; 35811; 35813; 2015 SCC 60; 2015 CSC Indexed As: Green et al. v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce et al. Supreme Court of Canada McLachlin, C.J.C., Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldav......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia Investment Management Corp., 2019 SCC 63
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 2019
    ...Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633; Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 801; MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; Windsor (City) v. Canadian Transit ......
  • Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, [2015] 3 SCR 801
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 4, 2015
    ...data-vids="">50 cases , 17 other sources SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 801 Date: 20151204 Docket: 35807, 35811, 35813 Between: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Appellant and Howard Green and Anne Bell Respon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
113 cases
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. Fontaine, 2017 SCC 47
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 6, 2017
    ...Alberta, 2014 ABCA 404, 378 D.L.R. (4th) 629; Balogun v. Pandher, 2010 ABCA 40, 474 A.R. 258; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 801; Reza v. Canada, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 394; Quebec (Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions) v. Jodoin, 2017 SCC 26, [201......
  • Peters v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc.,
    • Canada
    • Superior Court of Justice of Ontario (Canada)
    • July 16, 2021
    ...Gold Corp., 2014 ONCA 901 , aff’g 2013 ONSC 6864 ; Green v. CIBC, 2014 ONCA 90 , var’g 2012 ONSC 3637 , aff’d 2015 SCC 60; Bradley v. Eastern Platinum Ltd., 2016 ONSC 1903 at para. [20] CIBC v. Green, 2015 SCC 60 at paras. 120-123, 147, 212; Theratechnologies in......
  • Canada (Attorney General) v. British Columbia Investment Management Corp., 2019 SCC 63
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 13, 2019
    ...Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633; Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 801; MiningWatch Canada v. Canada (Fisheries and Oceans), 2010 SCC 2, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 6; Windsor (City) v. Canadian Transit ......
  • Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, [2015] 3 SCR 801
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • December 4, 2015
    ...data-vids="">50 cases , 17 other sources SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, [2015] 3 S.C.R. 801 Date: 20151204 Docket: 35807, 35811, 35813 Between: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Appellant and Howard Green and Anne Bell Respon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
38 firm's commentaries
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 22-26, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 30, 2021
    ...Lathing Insulation, Local 675 Pension Fund v. Barrick Gold Corporation, 2021 ONCA 104, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2017 ONCA 719, Swisscanto v. Blackberry, 2015 ONSC 6434, The Trustees of the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insu......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 22-26, 2021)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • November 30, 2021
    ...Lathing Insulation, Local 675 Pension Fund v. Barrick Gold Corporation, 2021 ONCA 104, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2017 ONCA 719, Swisscanto v. Blackberry, 2015 ONSC 6434, The Trustees of the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insu......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 26, 2022 ' September 30, 2022)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • October 5, 2022
    ...Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 5(1), Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Green, 2015 SCC 60, Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2017 ONCA 719, 1654776 Ontario Limited v. Stewart, 2013 ONCA 184, Theratechnologies Inc. v. 121851 Canada Inc.,......
  • Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 3 – February 7, 2020)
    • Canada
    • Mondaq Canada
    • April 8, 2020
    ...Pro Tunc, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC, 1985, c B-3, s2, s41(11), s67(1)(c), s187(9), Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Green, 2015 SCC 60 Activa Trading Co. Ltd. v. Birchland Plywood-Veneer Limited, 2020 ONCA 93 Keywords: Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Abuse of Process, Fre......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
53 books & journal articles
  • Introduction
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 12-1, December 2016
    • December 1, 2016
    ...The legislation came into force as Book IX of the Code of Civil Procedure in 1979. 14 Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Green, 2015 SCC 60 at para 49, Côté The C a nadia n Cl a ss Action R eview society where complex litigation is practicable. While the old courts were able to create m......
  • L’oratoire Saint-joseph Du Mont-royal v Jj and the Growing Complexity of Quebec’s Authorization Criteria
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 15-2, March 2020
    • March 1, 2020
    ...inc c 121851Canada inc, 2013 QCCA 1256 (CanLII) at paras 125–26, [2013] RJQ 1128. See also Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Green, 2015 SCC 60 paras 118–23, [2015] 3 SCR 801. 22 Steven Serajeddini, “Loss Causation and Class Certification” (2009) 108:2 Michigan Law Review 275. 23 David F......
  • A Statutory Solution to Ontario’s Environmental Class Action Problem: Section 99(2) of the Environmental Protection Act
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 14-2, March 2019
    • March 1, 2019
    ...Ramdath v George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2015 ONCA 921 [Ramdath]. 17 See Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Green, 2015 SCC 60 [Green]. 18 See Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd v Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57 CCAR 14-2.indb 426 1/8/2019 10:57:45 AM L a R ev ue C a nadienn......
  • An Overview of Class Actions and Covid-19 in Ontario’s Long-term Care Facilities
    • Canada
    • Irwin Books The Canadian Class Action Review No. 16-2, March 2021
    • March 1, 2021
    ...at paras 599–601 (this issue aff’d Green v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2014 ONCA 90; Green v Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2015 SCC 60); see also Bayens v Kinross Gold Corporation, 2014 ONCA 901 at paras 5 and 117 [Kinross]; Abdula v Canadian Solar Inc, 2015 ONSC 53 at para 27......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT