Adam H. Kanji

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action against Intuit Canada ULC and Intuit Inc., alleging that the defendants engaged in misleading advertising and 'drip pricing' by promoting their tax filing software as 'free' or 'free for simple tax returns', only to require users to pay to complete their filings after investing time in the software.

The court granted certification, finding that the pleadings disclosed valid causes of action under provincial consumer protection legislation, the Competition Act, and unjust enrichment.

The court approved the class definition, certified common issues relating to liability and aggregate damages (excluding punitive damages), and found that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure.

An individual claimant in a class action regarding administrative segregation brought a motion seeking approval to use confidential placement data of other inmates.

The claimant's counsel had inadvertently gained access to and downloaded this data from the claims administrator's database due to a legacy system error.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no basis under PIPEDA, the Privacy Act, or the Class Proceedings Act to permit the disclosure of the personal information, as it would not advance access to justice and would violate class members' privacy rights.

Furthermore, the court found the data was not relevant to the claimant's individual claim.

The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision and a reconsideration decision of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) that dismissed most of her discrimination and reprisal application for delay.

The HRTO had directed a combined summary hearing (to assess reasonable prospect of success) and preliminary hearing (to assess delay).

The Divisional Court found that the HRTO breached procedural fairness and rendered an unreasonable decision by conflating the two hearings, specifically by making substantive determinations about the merits of the applicant's timely allegations during the delay hearing without permitting viva voce evidence on the merits.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the HRTO decisions were set aside in part, and the matter was remitted to the HRTO.

The defendants in a proposed class action regarding allegedly deceptive advertising of tax software brought a motion to strike a paragraph in the statement of claim and portions of the certification record.

The impugned materials referenced regulatory and civil litigation settlements in the United States concerning similar advertising by the parent company.

The court granted the motion, finding that the U.S. settlement was not sufficiently relevant to the Canadian claims and that admitting the foreign litigation evidence would needlessly expand the certification inquiry.

The plaintiffs successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction to halt an arbitration commenced by the defendants in Hong Kong, which was found to be an abusive collateral attack on prior Ontario rulings.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $261,900 in substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing the defendants' vexatious and oppressive tactics in pursuing the foreign arbitration and threatening the representative plaintiffs with personal financial jeopardy.

The York University Staff Association (YUSA) and the Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC) brought motions for leave to intervene in a judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

YUSA sought to intervene as an added party under Rule 13.01, while BLAC sought to intervene as a friend of the Court under Rule 13.02.

The applicant consented, but the respondent university opposed.

The Divisional Court granted both motions, finding that YUSA had a significant interest in the workplace procedures at issue and that BLAC would provide a useful systemic perspective on anti-Black racism without expanding the issues or causing undue delay.

Two organizations, York University Staff Association (YUSA) and Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC), sought leave to intervene in an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision.

The underlying decision dismissed most of the applicant's discrimination claims for being outside the one-year limitation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed both motions for leave to intervene.

The court found that YUSA did not have a direct interest in the narrow limitation period issue before the court, and that BLAC would not provide a distinct perspective from the applicant and risked introducing irrelevant peripheral issues.

The decision addresses a motion by David Peter McMath and Darcy Loyie to stay their motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision dismissing their individual claims for additional damages arising from administrative segregation, pending the outcome of other test cases.

The court applies the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay and finds that while there is a serious question to be tried, the applicants failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favours a stay.

The motion is dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario addressed costs and a sealing order following its dismissal of the appellant's Charter challenge to a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit.

The court ordered each party to bear its own costs for both the appeal and the fresh evidence motions, citing divided success on the appeal and reasonable conduct regarding the fresh evidence motions.

Regarding the sealing order for fresh evidence, the court dismissed the appellant's request for a full sealing order, instead ordering limited redactions to the CRA final audit, consistent with a prior Superior Court order, to balance the open court principle with privacy and safety concerns, particularly given allegations of government wrongdoing.

The self-represented moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an October 2023 order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

Five bellwether individual issues trials were heard as summary judgment motions to determine whether class members who were placed in administrative segregation in federal penitentiaries were entitled to additional compensatory damages beyond their share of the aggregate damages award.

The court assessed the idiosyncratic harm suffered by each plaintiff, taking into account their pre-existing mental health conditions and other stressors.

The court awarded additional compensatory damages to three plaintiffs ($50,000, $25,000, and $75,000) who proved that their time in segregation caused specific, additional harm.

The claims of the other two plaintiffs were dismissed as they failed to prove causation.

The court declined to award punitive damages in any of the cases.

The self-represented appellant filed an appeal from a decision denying him standing to make submissions regarding the distribution of benefits in a class proceeding.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 to consider dismissing the appeal as frivolous, as the appellant relied on a statutory provision that did not apply to his circumstances.

However, because the appellant sought in the alternative to amend his pleadings to seek leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act, the court declined to dismiss the proceeding under Rule 2.1 and directed that the motion for leave be placed before a panel of the Divisional Court.

This decision, Part 9 of a series in a multi-jurisdictional class action, addresses bitterly contested motions by both the Attorney General of Canada and Class Counsel to revise the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The dispute centered on the scope of reply position statements for Track 2 claims.

Canada sought to limit replies strictly to mitigating factors and causation rebuttal, while Class Counsel argued for broader replies to new issues raised by Canada.

The court denied both parties' specific requests, instead directing a revision to allow Canada a right of sur-reply if a claimant files a reply, and imposing an increased payment to the Manager/Expert in such instances.

The ruling aims to ensure fair, efficient, and proportionate litigation while discouraging procedural abuses by either party.

This is Part 10 of a series of joint decisions in multi-jurisdictional class actions (Ontario and Quebec).

Class Counsel sought further revisions to the Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP), specifically to increase the $6,000 costs cap for Track 2 claims to $12,000, and to add a clause about Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applying to Track 2/3 claims, and to apply ordinary costs rules for contested Track 2 motions.

The court approved the latter two unopposed requests but denied the request to increase the costs cap, emphasizing proportionality and the need to simplify procedures rather than increase costs.

In a consolidated class action, Class Counsel sought partial indemnity costs for their work on a Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol (DIIP).

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the costs for DIIP development had been prepaid as part of prior counsel fee approvals.

The decision emphasized that DIIP creation is a necessary and collaborative aspect of class proceedings, not an event warranting additional 'success' costs, and clarified that prior judicial statements about future payments referred to costs already accounted for.

The plaintiffs in three related class actions regarding administrative segregation brought a consent motion to vary the Distribution and Issues Protocol to address late claims.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Québec jointly approved the consent order, granting leave for certain class members to file late claims and setting out the process for distributing compensation to those claimants.

The applicant, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers, sought judicial review of a decision by the College's Discipline and Fitness to Practise Committees to amend their rule regarding third-party record production to align with R. v. Mills.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant lacked both private and public interest standing as he was not currently subject to any proceedings where the rule would apply.

Furthermore, the Court held that even if standing were established, the Committees' decision to update the rule was reasonable and within their statutory authority.

The defendant sought to bring a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for lack of cause of action, arguing the contract's "affiliate" definition was not met.

At a case conference, the court declined to decide the complex motion, which involved contractual interpretation and surrounding circumstances.

Instead, the parties agreed to proceed with a two-day summary trial to resolve the matter more efficiently and cost-effectively.

The applicant, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), challenged a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audit and its preliminary recommendation to suspend MAC's charitable status, alleging Charter violations based on discriminatory information and Islamophobia.

The court dismissed the application on grounds of prematurity, holding that judicial intervention was inappropriate before the completion of the administrative process, which included internal appeals and further rights of appeal to the Tax Court of Canada or Federal Court of Appeal.

The applicant, a self-represented prisoner and class member in a class action regarding administrative segregation, brought a motion seeking to challenge and amend the court-approved Distribution and Individual Issues Protocol.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant lacked standing to seek amendments as he had not opted out of the class action and was bound by the outcomes negotiated by representative plaintiffs.

Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant's recent placement in administrative segregation occurred after the class period had closed, placing it outside the scope of the class action, and that his criticisms of the protocol were based on a misunderstanding of its revisions.