SCC to hear civil appeals on securities law, adverse possession, and insurance in winter session
The Supreme Court of Canada is slated to hear appeals in 22 cases in its upcoming winter session, including six involving civil law. The session will start the third week of January.
On Jan. 15, the high court will begin hearing the appeal in Lundin Mining Corporation, et al. v. Dov Markowich. The case considers what qualifies as a “material change” for the purpose of Canadian securities law.
Markowich is a shareholder of Lundin Mining Corporation, who filed a proposed class action against Lundin, its officers, and directors, alleging they failed to promptly disclose pit wall instability and a rockslide that followed at a Chilean mine.
Lundin did not publicly disclose the events until a month after they occurred in 2017. The day following the disclosure, the price of the company’s securities fell 16 percent on the Toronto Stock Exchange. The SCC will consider Markowich’s claim that Lundin’s failure to immediately disclose the event violated its obligation to report a “material change” in its “business, operations or capital.”
On Jan. 16, the high court will start hearing the appeal in Pawel Kosicki, et al. v. City of Toronto, which considers whether a lower court had the authority to bolster the immunity of municipalities more than what was intended by the legislature.
The case involves homeowners in Toronto who sought an order for adverse possession of a piece of city land that the previous property owners had incorporated into their backyard. While the city admitted that the homeowners’ evidence satisfied the traditional test for adverse possession, the parties disagreed on whether the disputed land was immune to adverse possession claims because it was city land.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal found that private landowners cannot acquire title by fencing off public land for private use.
In Stephen Emond and Claudette Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Company, which the high court is slated to hear on March 18, the Emonds lived in a home on the Ottawa River that overlapped with the catchment area of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority. The Emonds had a home insurance policy with Trillium Mutual Insurance Company.
In 2019, the Emonds’ home was severely damaged by a flood. Trillium admitted the homeowners’ policy covered the loss, but the parties disagreed on what costs were excluded from coverage. The case focuses on whether the policy fully guaranteed the cost of rebuilding their home.
The SCC will consider whether rebuilding coverage can be restricted by contradictory exclusions written into an underlying insurance policy, among other questions.
The three other civil cases the high court will consider in its winter session are Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia v. Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia, Ville de Sainte-Julie c. Investissements Laroda inc., and Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v. Louis-Victor Sylvestre, et al.