Jasmine T. Akbarali

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.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Facebook, alleging the unauthorized sharing of user data with third-party apps.

The court struck the claims for breach of confidence and breaches of the privacy statutes of British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland and Labrador, but found the pleadings disclosed causes of action for breach of contract, intrusion upon seclusion, disgorgement, and breach of the Saskatchewan Privacy Act.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' proposed expert evidence but admitted various documentary exhibits.

While the court approved several common issues, it found others required individual inquiries and adjourned the motion to allow the plaintiffs to propose a revised class definition and litigation plan.

The moving party brought an urgent motion seeking a further three-month extension of the suspension of a declaration of invalidity regarding sections of the Citizenship Act.

The court previously found the limits on derivative citizenship unconstitutional and suspended the declaration to allow Parliament to pass remedial legislation.

Despite finding that the government had not acted with sufficient diligence in advancing the replacement bill, the court reluctantly granted the extension to March 19, 2025, balancing the public interest in having replacement legislation, the complexity of the citizenship regime, and the potential for chaos if the unconstitutional law was struck down without a replacement.

Costs were awarded to the responding party.

The defendants moved for summary judgment in a defamation action brought by their uncle, who alleged they sent and repeated a text message calling him a rapist.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04 to hear oral evidence on a discrete credibility issue regarding the alleged repetition of the text.

Finding no admissible evidence that the text message ever existed and preferring the defendant's evidence that he never repeated such a statement, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded $30,000 in costs.

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 plaintiff brought a certified class proceeding against the Province of Ontario regarding the Centre of Forensic Sciences' (CFS) retention of DNA profiles obtained from voluntarily provided reference samples.

The class members had signed consent forms stating that electronic data related to their samples would be permanently removed if they were excluded as a match to a crime scene.

The court found that the CFS's practice of merely anonymizing, rather than permanently removing, the DNA profiles vitiated the class members' consent.

This resulted in an unreasonable search and continued seizure in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court awarded aggregate Charter damages of $1,000 per class member ($7,267,000 total) for vindication and deterrence, but dismissed the claims for intrusion upon seclusion and punitive damages, finding the CFS acted in good faith.

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.

J.F. appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board that found him incapable of consenting to anti-psychotic medication.

The core issue was whether J.F. could appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his treatment decisions, particularly his inability to acknowledge the manifestations of his mental condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Board's determination that J.F. was incapable of consenting to treatment, as he failed to recognize the possibility that he was affected by the manifestations of a mental condition.