Jasmine T. Akbarali

The respondent sought an extension of the suspension of the declaration of invalidity of certain provisions of the Citizenship Act.

The declaration was originally suspended for six months from December 19, 2023, and has been extended multiple times.

The respondent sought an extension to January 20, 2026 (reduced from April 22, 2026 by consent).

The court granted a two-month extension to January 20, 2026, noting significant progress in enacting replacement legislation with a reasonable expectation that it may come into force by the end of 2025.

The court adjourned the balance of the motion to January 13, 2026.

This is a continued certification motion in a class action alleging that the defendant misused class members' data by making it available to third parties without consent.

The court declined to certify the proceeding on multiple grounds: the proposed class definition was not workable, as it required individual inquiries to develop a Master Class List and was both under-inclusive and over-inclusive; the nominal damages issue could not be certified as a common issue because individual issues were woven into its determination; the proceeding was not the preferable procedure given the absence of evidence of compensable loss and the availability of regulatory proceedings; and the litigation plan was unworkable given the size of the class and the numerous individual inquiries required.

The defendant was awarded costs of $500,000 all-inclusive.

The defendant was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of property obtained from an indictable offence contrary to s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a trial without jury, the defendant was found not guilty of the charges but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of a Schedule 1 substance contrary to s. 4(1) of the CDSA.

At sentencing, the Crown sought time served plus 18 months probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence plus 12 months probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, emphasizing rehabilitation as the primary sentencing objective given the defendant's long-standing opioid addiction and lack of prior custodial sentences.

The court acquitted the defendant, A.C., of three counts of sexual assault, finding the evidence did not establish lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court accepted the defendant’s evidence as credible and consistent, and found significant inconsistencies and credibility concerns in the complainant’s testimony.

The court also found the defendant guilty of mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking, in accordance with his plea.

The court found J.A.S.G. guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of sexual assault against his estranged spouse, following a trial in which the complainant was the sole witness.

The decision reviews the legal principles of credibility, consent, and the assessment of evidence in sexual assault cases, and applies them to the facts as found.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence as credible and reliable, and found that the Crown had proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted Richard Ray Smith of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but convicted him of the lesser included offence of possession of a Schedule 1 substance.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence, the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case, and the application of the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found that while the amount of fentanyl was consistent with trafficking, it was also consistent with personal use for a heavy user, and the packaging, cash, and other items did not support an inference of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court considers a motion by the Attorney General of Canada for a further extension of the suspension of a declaration of invalidity regarding certain provisions of the Citizenship Act, previously found unconstitutional.

The court reviews the history of prior extensions, the respondent’s reliance on Parliament’s prorogation, and the adequacy of interim measures for rights-holders.

Finding the respondent’s evidence on expanded interim measures insufficient, the court grants a short extension and directs the respondent to file further evidence and argument, with a return date set for April 11, 2025.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the plaintiffs, Benny and Joy Osajie, in a real estate transaction dispute.

The defendant, Eevine Alile, failed to close on an agreement of purchase and sale, alleging misrepresentation regarding square footage, poor property condition, and the absence of a basement tenant.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on any of these grounds, dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, and awarded damages and costs to the plaintiffs.

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

This decision concerns an appeal by L.H. from a Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) decision confirming her incapacity to consent to treatment with antipsychotic medication.

The court reviews the legal test for capacity under the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, and the requirement for the ability to appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of a treatment decision.

The court finds that, where the evidence clearly demonstrates the appellant cannot recognize the possibility of being affected by a mental condition, the CCB is not required to inquire into her actual appreciation of the treatment decision’s parameters.

The appeal is dismissed, and an anonymization order is granted.

The plaintiff, Lynn Sraha-Yeboah, brought claims against Gregory Jewell and Matthew Jewell for intrusion upon seclusion, alleging that they conducted audio and video surveillance of her in a jointly owned home, including through hidden cameras.

The defendants moved for summary dismissal, relying primarily on a mutual release signed between Lynn and Gregory.

The court found that the release could not bar claims arising from breaches of solicitor-client privilege that occurred during its negotiation, nor could it benefit Matthew, who was not a party to the release.

The court also rejected arguments that Lynn had no reasonable expectation of privacy, that her damages were too remote, and that her claims were barred by estoppel or abuse of process.

The motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The court considered whether to dismiss the application against Ontario under rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, Ramlall Hemchand, alleged that Ontario failed to act on complaints regarding his rental premises and the conduct of his landlords.

The court found the application against Ontario to be frivolous and vexatious, noting that the pleadings did not identify any duty owed or breached by Ontario, nor did they seek any relief against Ontario.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to amend her claim to continue the action under the simplified procedure, which would require striking the defendant’s jury notice.

The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice if deprived of a jury trial and that the trial would exceed the five-day limit of the simplified rules.

The court found the trial could be completed within five days with proper management and that striking the jury notice would not cause non-compensable prejudice.

The court ordered the action to proceed under the simplified procedure, struck the jury notice, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The court considered cross-applications between Michelle Goldstein Zaldin and Seymour Goldstein regarding the enforcement of a shotgun clause in a shareholders’ agreement for their jointly owned insurance and investment businesses.

The court found that a binding agreement was reached for Ms. Zaldin to purchase Mr. Goldstein’s shares, and that Mr. Goldstein’s failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals constituted a breach that prevented closing.

The court granted specific performance in favour of Ms. Zaldin, declined to imply additional terms into the agreement, and awarded her costs.

The court considered a request by Ontario to dismiss the application against it under rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The application alleged that the applicant’s landlords breached his privacy, the lease agreement, and intentionally inflicted emotional distress.

As against Ontario, the claim was that Ontario failed to act on the applicant’s complaints about the rental premises and the conduct of the landlords.

The court found that the pleading did not identify a viable claim or duty owed by Ontario and made procedural orders, including a stay of the action and directions for further submissions.

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement arising from a 2020 ransomware attack on Blackbaud, a cloud software provider, which resulted in the exfiltration of personal data of its customers' constituents.

Despite the data breach, no evidence of actual harm or misuse of the exfiltrated data emerged over four years.

The plaintiff sought certification for settlement purposes and approval of a cy-près settlement of $340,000, to be distributed to two academic institutions focused on internet policy and data security.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair and reasonable given the low likelihood of success in litigation due to the absence of provable damages and the unlikelihood of establishing claims in negligence or intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also approved an unusual notice plan, dispensing with pre-approval notice to the class due to the impracticality of identifying and notifying class members and the low value of the opt-out right.

However, the court significantly reduced class counsel's requested fees from 33.3% to approximately 17.5% of the settlement amount, citing the case's lack of objective success and to discourage the "churning of bad cases."

This motion concerned the approval of a class action settlement regarding trailing commissions paid by TD Asset Management Inc. to discount brokers.

The plaintiff alleged improper payments and misrepresentations.

The court approved a $70.25 million settlement for the class, along with the proposed notice plan, distribution protocol, and appointment of an administrator.

The court also approved class counsel fees and disbursements, an interim payment to the litigation funder, release of the funder's security, and an honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

The defendant, Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPAO), sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for misfeasance in public office and breach of fiduciary duty, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff, an aspiring accountant, alleged CPAO manipulated his Common Final Examination (CFE) results, leading to his deregistration.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was discoverable on November 27, 2020, when he received his CFE results, and his subsequent appeal of the deregistration decision did not toll the limitation period as it was not an adequate alternative remedy for challenging the exam results.

The plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability.

Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed as being out of time.