Jasmine T. Akbarali

The defendants in several related class actions brought motions for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' actions were statute-barred by limitation periods or were a nullity for failing to obtain leave to commence.

The court adjourned the limitation period motions, finding they overlapped with common issues in earlier certified class actions.

The court dismissed the motions based on the leave requirement, interpreting the certification orders' leave provisions as applying only to competing class actions representing the same class members, not to actions by different classes arising from the same factual matrix.

The defendant, Citadelle, brought a motion seeking an order to seal certain Master Supply Agreements (MSAs) and Individual Supply Agreements (ISAs) with Coca-Cola, arguing that these documents contained commercially sensitive and confidential information.

The plaintiff consented to the motion.

The court applied the three-part test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the important public interest of preserving confidential commercial information, that no reasonable alternative measures would prevent this risk, and that the benefits of the narrowly tailored sealing order outweighed its negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, and the identified agreements were ordered sealed.

The defendants requested the court to consider dismissing the plaintiff's application under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the application appeared frivolous, vexatious, or abusive, as it failed to identify a claim, state facts, or identify relief sought.

The court directed the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the plaintiff, stayed the action pending the written hearing, and prohibited further filings except the plaintiff's submissions.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class action alleging breach of fiduciary duty, knowing assistance, and knowing receipt against investment advisors and their associated companies.

The claims arose from the defendants' recommendation of investments in Invoice Payment System Corporation (IPS), a company in which the advisors had a significant undisclosed ownership stake and from which they received commissions.

While the Court of Appeal had previously found the pleadings disclosed a cause of action for a class-wide fiduciary duty, this court dismissed the certification motion.

The court found that the proposed common issues regarding the existence, nature, and breach of a class-wide fiduciary duty could not be determined in common across the class, as individual inquiries into each client's specific circumstances, level of trust, reliance, and understanding of disclosures were necessary.

Consequently, the claims for knowing receipt, knowing assistance, and remedies also failed the certification test.

The plaintiff moved, with the defendant's consent, for an order certifying a class proceeding for settlement purposes under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action concerned the payment of trailing commissions to discount brokers from TD Mutual Funds, allegedly diminishing unit value due to breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found all certification criteria met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues (breach of fiduciary duty), and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially in the context of a settlement.

The proposed representative plaintiff was deemed adequate, and the notice plan, long-form and short-form notices, and opt-out process were approved.

The action was certified for settlement purposes.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a dismissal order and a full and final release from a 2013 settlement, arguing the injured plaintiff was under a disability and the settlement was never approved by the court under Rule 7.08.

The plaintiffs' former lawyer had fraudulently settled the action without their knowledge and misappropriated the funds.

The court found the plaintiff was under a disability at the time, but declined to set aside the settlement because the tort insurer acted in good faith, was unaware of the disability, and the settlement itself was not unconscionable.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff in a class action brought an unopposed motion for approval of a third-party funding agreement under s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The agreement provided indemnity for adverse costs in exchange for a premium of up to 10% of the litigation proceeds.

The court approved the agreement, finding it fair and reasonable, protective of the plaintiff's control over the litigation, and supported by the funder's financial capacity.

The defendant, Canadian Mental Health Association, York Region Branch, sought to dismiss the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing it was frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, self-represented and experiencing homelessness and potential mental illness, alleged breach of contract, privacy torts, negligence, and discrimination.

The court, applying the strict test for Rule 2.1 dismissals, found that while the pleading was scant, it did not clearly fall into the category of being frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process on its face.

The motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice to the defendants' right to bring a dismissal motion on other grounds (e.g., Rules 20, 21, or 25.11) with a more complete record.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Volkswagen and Audi entities regarding diesel vehicles fitted with a defeat device to subvert emissions testing.

The Divisional Court had previously remitted the certification motion back to the Superior Court to rehear the balance of the certification motion, apart from the questions of harm and methodology for measuring damages.

The court certified the class action, finding that the pleadings disclosed causes of action for misrepresentation, breach of the Competition Act, breach of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, and breach of certain provincial consumer protection statutes.

Claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment were struck.

The court certified several common issues but declined to certify issues requiring proof of individual reliance or disgorgement.

The appellant, K.S., appealed a decision by the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) that confirmed a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and her incapacity regarding the Community Treatment Plan (CTP).

The appeal argued that the respondent physician failed to obtain proper consent from K.S.'s substitute decision-maker (SDM) in accordance with the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 (HCCA), specifically concerning informed consent (s. 11(3)) and prior capable wishes (s. 21).

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the s. 11(3) issue was not properly raised before the CCB, and that the CCB made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that consent was obtained in accordance with s. 21, distinguishing the case from G.A. v. Kantor.

The applicants sought a determination that the arbitrator erred in finding jurisdiction over certain relief claimed by the respondents in an ongoing arbitration.

The court found that the applicants had waived their right to object to the arbitrator's jurisdiction through their conduct, including filing a counterclaim and issuing their own notice of demand for arbitration invoking the arbitrator's jurisdiction.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing that allowing a last-minute jurisdictional challenge after significant participation would undermine the efficiency and benefits of arbitration.

This endorsement addresses a motion by the Attorney General of Canada for a further extension of the suspension of a declaration of invalidity concerning sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, which were previously found to contravene the Charter.

The court assessed the respondent's updated mechanism for addressing urgent hardship cases and the progress of Bill C-71, intended to remedy the unconstitutional provisions.

The court found the hardship mechanism sufficient and the legislative progress satisfactory, concluding that a further extension would not undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The extension was granted until December 19, 2024, and the applicants were awarded partial indemnity costs.

This endorsement from a case conference addressed several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Indigenous land claims.

The court provided directions regarding preparatory materials for upcoming out-of-court expert examinations, including the appointment of a hybrid commissioner and deadlines for expert report summaries and legal arguments.

The court also addressed a dispute regarding the scope of cross-examination of an expert witness, directing the parties to narrow issues concerning adversity of interest before seeking further judicial determination.

Finally, the court confirmed the appointment of a pre-trial judge and scheduled the next case conference.

This appeal concerned the denial of Indian status to Sharon Bocchini and her late mother, Bertha Isbister, descendants of St. Pierre Cook.

The Indian Registrar denied status based on Mr. Cook's historical receipt of "half-breed scrip" and withdrawal from treaty in the 1880s.

The court found that the Registrar erred in law by applying the wrong version of the Indian Act (1888 instead of 1886) to determine Mr. Cook's lawful withdrawal from treaty.

The court also found palpable and overriding errors of fact in the Registrar's conclusion that Mr. Cook lawfully received scrip, noting he was a minor (17 years old) at the time of application and sale, and that the Registrar failed to adequately consider evidence of widespread scrip fraud affecting the Sandy Bay Band.

The appeal was allowed, and the removal of Sharon Bocchini and Bertha Isbister from the Indian Register was reversed, with costs awarded to the appellant.

The plaintiff, Peter Ross, brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding against RBC Global Asset Management Inc. and RBC Investor Services Trust.

The action alleges that the defendants breached trust, fiduciary, and contractual duties by paying excessive trailing commissions to discount brokers from mutual fund assets.

The court granted certification, finding all five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met, including the disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and a suitable representative plaintiff with a workable plan.

The Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement concerning the defendant's practice of automatically renewing mortgages at increased interest rates.

The court found the $1.5 million settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the arm's length negotiation and lack of objections.

Class counsel fees of $450,000 plus HST and disbursements were approved, being less than their hourly rate calculation and reflecting the significant risk undertaken.

However, the requested $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff was denied, as the court determined her contributions, while appropriate, did not meet the 'exceptional circumstances' threshold required for such an award.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action under Part XXIII.1 of the Securities Act against Akumin Inc., its directors and officers, and its auditor, Ernst & Young LLP, and for certification of the action under the Class Proceedings Act.

The claims arose from alleged misrepresentations in Akumin's financial statements that were later restated.

The court granted leave against the Akumin defendants, finding a reasonable possibility of success at trial regarding the alleged misrepresentations and public corrections.

However, the court denied leave against the auditor, EY, finding insufficient evidence that the auditor's statements were material or publicly corrected.

The court certified the action as a global class proceeding against the Akumin defendants, rejecting arguments to exclude American purchasers from the class.

The plaintiff in a certified class action moved to amend the class definition to extend the class period from May 18, 2021, to May 31, 2022.

The defendant opposed, arguing that claims of proposed new class members accruing after the original certification date were statute-barred and not tolled by s. 28 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the class definition, finding that while s. 28 does not toll limitation periods for claims accruing after certification for individuals who were not putative class members at the time of certification, the issue of discoverability for these new members should be left to the individual issues phase of the proceeding.

The court also approved the proposed notice plan.

The plaintiffs in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action under s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, with the defendants' consent.

The action alleged Bell Canada miscalculated a 1998 cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase for pensioners.

This issue was resolved through an "Action Plan" negotiated between Bell and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI), resulting in approximately $84.2 million in retroactive payments to affected pensioners.

The court found the action moot and granted leave to discontinue, approving the proposed notice plan, as the discontinuance would not prejudice the putative class members.

The Attorney General of Canada brought an urgent motion seeking a six-month extension of a suspended declaration of invalidity concerning sections 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Citizenship Act, which were previously found unconstitutional for limiting derivative citizenship.

The applicants opposed the extension or sought conditions.

The court granted a shorter extension until August 9, 2024, with a further hearing scheduled for August 1, 2024, to review progress on remedial legislation (Bill C-71) and an improved plan for addressing hardship cases.

The court also ordered that constitutional exemptions be granted to other first-generation born abroad applicants.