Jasmine T. Akbarali

The plaintiffs brought actions against Ukraine International Airlines (UIA) under the Montreal Convention following the shoot-down of Flight PS752 by Iranian military surface-to-air missiles shortly after takeoff from Tehran.

UIA admitted the shoot-down was an 'accident' under the Convention, making it strictly liable, but sought to limit its liability by proving it was not negligent in allowing the flight to depart.

The Superior Court of Justice found that UIA failed to meet the standard of care for a reasonable airline operating in or near a conflict zone, as it did not conduct a proper security threat risk assessment or any safety risk assessment, and failed to gather available intelligence or brief the flight commander.

The court held that UIA failed to prove its negligence did not cause the passengers' deaths or that the harm was too remote, resulting in unlimited liability for the airline.

The defendant Canada Life brought a motion for the plaintiff, who is self-represented and has a history of mental health issues, to undergo a capacity assessment.

The court, explaining its decision in simple language for the plaintiff, found that the plaintiff's capacity to manage the litigation was relevant and there was good reason to believe she might be incapable.

The motion was granted, ordering the plaintiff to attend a capacity assessment, with Canada Life bearing the costs.

Following a decision granting summary judgment, the court issued a supplementary endorsement to address correspondence from the parties regarding costs.

The court had previously corrected two inadvertent errors in its costs awards at the request of the defendants.

The plaintiff's counsel subsequently emailed the court requesting that the costs orders be held in abeyance to allow for further written submissions, alleging sharp practice by opposing counsel.

The court declined the request, noting that all parties had previously agreed to the court determining costs based on the uploaded outlines without further submissions.

The court held that it was inappropriate to request a change to the costs decision or to make allegations of professional misconduct via email to the court.

The moving parties, a car rental company and its lessee, sought partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claims against them.

The plaintiff's vehicle was struck by the rental car, which was driven by the lessee's partner without express consent.

The court found that partial summary judgment was appropriate to determine the issue of consent.

Applying the objective test for implied consent, the court concluded that the driver would not have been justified in deeming she had implied consent to possess the vehicle, given she had never taken it before, only had a G1 license, and the lessee had no reason to suspect she would take it.

The motions were granted and the claims against the moving parties were dismissed.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging the improper charging of duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The defendant consented to the certification.

The court, applying the five criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

Consequently, the action was certified as a class proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a 2017 order dismissing his action for delay, arguing he failed to appear due to accident, mistake, or insufficient notice, largely attributable to his prior counsel's failures.

The court considered the "forthwith" requirement for bringing such a motion, the lengthy delay and its reasons, the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant, and the underlying merits of the plaintiff's case.

The court found that the plaintiff's previous lawyers were primarily responsible for the delay, that the defendant did not suffer actual, non-compensable prejudice, and that the plaintiff had a meritorious case.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses procedural issues in a complex litigation, specifically disputes regarding the admissibility of expert reports and estimates of trial length.

The court noted progress in resolving these issues and scheduled a further case conference to revisit them and receive an update on an expert witness's health.

The plaintiff in a putative class action sought leave to discontinue the action pursuant to s. 29 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The claim alleged that the defendants, including Emerge Canada Inc., violated working capital requirements and improperly pre-paid management fees.

The defendants were subsequently wound up, had no assets, and no insurance to satisfy a judgment.

The Class Proceedings Fund also denied funding for the action.

The court granted the motion for discontinuance, finding that the class would not be prejudiced given the lack of recovery prospects and the remaining limitation period for individual claims.

A notice plan for putative class members was approved.

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment due to the bank's practice of charging duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.

The motion for certification was brought with the defendant's consent.

The court applied the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action, there was an identifiable class, common issues were raised, a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, and the representative plaintiff was adequate.

The court granted the certification order.

The defendant law firm brought a motion to quash an order for assessment of its accounts obtained by the plaintiff, its former client.

The defendant argued the request for assessment was made outside the 30-day statutory period under the Solicitors Act and that no special circumstances existed to warrant assessment.

The plaintiff contended that new invoices brought the matter within the time frame or, alternatively, that special circumstances were present.

The court found that special circumstances, including a lack of detailed billing, inadequate communication regarding accounts, and concerns about overcharging, were sufficient to require the assessment of all accounts.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, and the order for assessment was allowed to proceed.

The plaintiff, as the successful self-represented litigant, was awarded $500 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against Haventree Bank for settlement purposes.

The action alleged that the bank breached legislation and contract terms by automatically renewing mortgages at higher interest rates, leading to additional costs for class members.

The court granted the certification, finding that all criteria under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially in the context of a settlement.

The court also approved the notice plan and the appointment of a Claims Administrator.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation.

It sets a timetable for a forthcoming motion by the Attorney General of Canada regarding the taking of evidence from certain witnesses before trial.

The court also noted Ontario's expected late delivery of expert reports, discussed the parties' differing estimates for trial length and scheduled a follow-up conference, and provided guidance on addressing concerns about trial presentation software (CaseLines).

The defendants, Coinbase Global, Inc., Coinbase, Inc., Coinbase Europe Limited, and Coinbase Canada Inc., brought a motion to dismiss a putative class action for want of jurisdiction and, alternatively, to permanently stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants violated Ontario securities legislation by distributing crypto assets without complying with prospectus requirements.

The court found presence-based jurisdiction only over Coinbase Canada Inc. due to its business activities in Ontario.

However, the court found no presence-based, consent-based, or assumed jurisdiction over Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., or Coinbase Global.

Consequently, the action against Coinbase Europe, Coinbase Inc., and Coinbase Global was dismissed.

The court then considered forum non conveniens for Coinbase Canada Inc., concluding that Ireland was a clearly more appropriate forum given that the plaintiff's claims arose from transactions with Coinbase Europe, which was domiciled in Ireland, and the lack of a class action framework in Ireland was not a decisive juridical disadvantage.

The action against Coinbase Canada Inc. was permanently stayed.

The appellant appealed an order from the Consent and Capacity Board (CCB) confirming his involuntary patient status and incapacity to consent to treatment.

The appeal regarding involuntary status became moot as the appellant was discharged.

The court focused on the finding of incapacity.

The CCB found the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment, relying on his repeated denial of a mental disorder despite exhibiting symptoms.

The court applied a palpable and overriding error standard of review to the CCB's factual conclusions.

The appeal was dismissed, as the court found no palpable and overriding error in the CCB's conclusion that the appellant's condition prevented him from appreciating the consequences of his treatment decisions.

The plaintiff sought court approval for a proposed $500,000 settlement of a securities class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations by a cannabis company.

The court declined to approve the settlement, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove it was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court cited concerns over the gross disparity between the Canadian settlement and a $2.9 million USD settlement in a parallel US proceeding, the lack of evidence regarding estimated class size and recovery per member, and unexplained issues regarding insurance coverage.

The Superior Court of Justice approved identical third-party funding agreements in four related class actions against major Canadian banks.

The actions allege that the banks charged duplicative non-sufficient funds fees on single dishonoured pre-authorized debits.

The court, applying Section 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, found the agreements to be fair and reasonable, noting the staged success fee was comparable to or more advantageous than the Class Proceedings Fund levy.

The court confirmed the agreements preserved plaintiff control over litigation, ensured the funder's financial capacity for adverse costs, and included appropriate confidentiality and deemed undertaking provisions.

The defendants took no position on the motions.

This endorsement from a case conference addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation, including the taking of expert evidence before trial, Canada's missed deadline for an expert report, the appointment of pre-trial and trial judges, the use of trial presentation software, and Ontario's Crown immunity defence.

The court scheduled a motion for expert evidence and provided directions for parties to prepare a trial timetable and discuss judicial assistance.

The plaintiff, Tyler Dufault, moved for court approval of a class action settlement against The Toronto-Dominion Bank and The Canada Trust Company concerning the practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debits.

The proposed settlement included an all-inclusive payment of $15.9 million, direct distribution of funds to eligible class members, and non-monetary changes to the defendants' NSF fee disclosure and reversal policies.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the high take-up rate due to direct distribution and the significant non-monetary benefits.

The court also approved class counsel's fees and disbursements, third-party funder fees, and a $10,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Robyn Ramanauskas, brought a consent motion to certify a class proceeding against the Bank of Montreal.

The action alleged that the bank charged duplicative non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions, constituting breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

The court found that all criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, including disclosure of a cause of action, an identifiable class, common issues, preferable procedure, and an adequate representative plaintiff.

The motion for certification was granted.

The defendants, Refinitiv Limited and Sitel Operating Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for defamation and breach of privacy.

The plaintiff, a former senior advisor to the Kenyan prime minister, alleged wrongful inclusion in Refinitiv's World-Check Database as a Politically Exposed Person (PEP) and defamatory statements by Sitel's customer service.

The court found that the statements in the database were true in substance and fact, thus upholding the defence of justification.

It also determined there was no breach of privacy as the information was from public sources.

The claims against Sitel were dismissed as the alleged defamatory statements were covered by a prior release, lacked evidence of defamation, and were based on true information from the database.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action in its entirety and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the defendants due to the plaintiff's unreasonable litigation conduct and voluminous, unnecessary evidence.