Jasmine T. Akbarali

The defendant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the plaintiff's defamation action as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).

The dispute arose from the defendant's social media posts concerning alleged financial improprieties and political partiality of a Hindu temple towards the Sri Lankan government.

The court found that the defendant's expressions related to matters of public interest.

The plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the action had substantial merit or that the defendant had no valid defence (justification for financial allegations, fair comment for cultural allegations).

The court also found no serious harm to the plaintiff and a strong public interest in protecting the defendant's expression.

The motion was granted, the action dismissed, and full indemnity costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify a class proceeding concerning the alleged improper payment of trailing commissions to discount brokers from CIBC mutual funds.

The court applied the five criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, adopting previous judicial analyses for the first four criteria.

The court found the representative plaintiff capable and the proposed litigation and notice plans appropriate, granting the certification order.

This motion sought approval for the notice of certification and notice plan in a class proceeding concerning toxic mold in housing on Long Lake No. 58 First Nation's reserve.

The court approved the proposed notice, finding it clear and easy to understand, and the opt-out procedure straightforward.

The court also approved the notice plan, which included delivery by mail, posting on Facebook, and at community offices, and confirmed that notice only in English was appropriate given the class members' language.

This decision provides supplementary reasons to a constitutional application that previously found s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act unconstitutional for creating a second-generation cut-off for citizenship by descent.

The court clarifies and amends its prior order, extending the declaration of invalidity to s. 3(3)(b) of the Act, which also imposes a second-generation cut-off for those born before 1977.

It also amends the constitutional exemptions granted to specific applicants and their children, including those born after the initial hearing, and extends the deadline for issuing citizenship certificates due to logistical issues.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendant, alleging that ethanol emissions from the defendant's whisky aging warehouses caused the growth of 'whiskey fungus' that damaged their properties.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the pleadings failed to disclose a cause of action, there was no identifiable class rationally connected to the common issues, and the individual issues predominated over any common issues.

The court also excluded the plaintiffs' proposed expert evidence due to a lack of evidence regarding their qualifications, and found the proposed representative plaintiffs unsuitable as their claims appeared statute-barred.

The parties to a putative class action agreed to discontinue the action with prejudice, as similar claims were being pursued in a proposed class proceeding in British Columbia.

The court approved the discontinuance pursuant to s. 29(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and dispensed with the requirement to give notice to the class, noting the early stage of the proceeding and the continuation of the claims in British Columbia.

The applicants challenged the constitutionality of the 'second-generation cut-off' in s. 3(3)(a) of the Citizenship Act, which prevents Canadian citizens born abroad from automatically passing citizenship to their children born abroad.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the provision violates s. 15(1) of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of national origin and the intersection of national origin and sex.

The court also found a violation of s. 6(1) mobility rights, as the law penalizes first-generation born abroad Canadians for choosing to live and work abroad.

The violations were not saved by s. 1.

The court declared the provision of no force or effect, suspended the declaration for six months, and granted constitutional exemptions to specific applicants, but denied Charter damages.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion to certify the proceeding as a class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The action alleges that the defendant improperly paid trailing commissions to discount brokers out of mutual fund assets.

The court found that all certification criteria were met, relying on previous decisions in similar cases, and granted the certification order.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, citing numerous deficiencies in the plaintiff's claim, including lack of particulars, misapplication of legal principles (e.g., Charter rights, malicious prosecution), and jurisdictional issues.

The plaintiff, a self-represented LLM holder, indicated an intent to discontinue but failed to address the court's concerns regarding the claim's validity.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff's pleading vexatious and unmeritorious, and ordered that the plaintiff must obtain leave of the court before commencing any future action against these defendants, requiring a draft statement of claim for review.

The plaintiff brought a consent motion for leave to commence a class action under the Securities Act and for certification under the Class Proceedings Act for settlement purposes.

The action alleged misrepresentations in public statements by the defendants.

The parties reached a proposed settlement of $500,000.

The court granted leave and certified the class for settlement, finding all certification criteria met, albeit with less strict application for settlement purposes.

The court approved the representative plaintiff and the administrator but required revisions to the proposed class notices and further submissions regarding the notice dissemination plan to ensure clarity and proper information for class members.

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

The court reviewed the 47-page statement of claim and found it to be confusing, lacking particulars, and raising serious jurisdictional concerns.

The court noted that the claim included allegations of malicious prosecution and Charter breaches against individual defendants without a proper basis.

Consequently, the court directed the registrar to issue a notice to the plaintiff to provide written submissions as to why the action should not be dismissed, and stayed the action pending the outcome.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action alleging that Uber improperly calculated Goods and Services Tax (GST) on pre-discounted Uber Eats orders, claiming violations of the Excise Tax Act (ETA), provincial consumer protection legislation, the Competition Act, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the certification motion, primarily finding that the claim was barred by ss. 224.1 and 312 of the ETA.

The court characterized the action as an attempt to recover tax outside the comprehensive statutory scheme provided by the ETA, which includes a rebate mechanism.

Additionally, the court identified other deficiencies, including inadequate pleadings for certain causes of action, issues with class identifiability due to varying promotional language, and a lack of commonality among proposed issues, concluding that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure.

The applicant sought relief from forfeiture for late notice of a claim under a Directors and Officers' Liability Policy, arguing imperfect compliance.

The respondent denied coverage, asserting non-compliance with a condition precedent.

The court found the applicant's delay in notifying the insurer, after the Securities Act amendment permitted disclosure, constituted a substantial breach and caused prejudice to the insurer in a claims-made policy.

Consequently, relief from forfeiture was not available, and the application was dismissed.

A putative class action had settled, subject to court approval.

A proposed intervener sought a timetable to bring a motion to intervene and be appointed representative plaintiff.

The existing parties to the action sought a timetable for the certification and settlement approval motions, arguing that the intervention motion should not be scheduled unless settlement approval was denied.

The court determined that the certification and settlement approval motions should be heard first, and the intervention motion would only be scheduled if settlement approval was not granted.

This case management conference endorsement addresses the timetable for a complex action, primarily focusing on the delivery of expert reports and amended pleadings.

The court resolved disagreements between the plaintiff, defendants, and intervener regarding deadlines for expert reports, particularly those from the Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) and experts who had been ill.

The court also set a deadline for Ontario's defence to Canada's cross-claim, prioritizing realistic timelines and efficiency over the plaintiff's desire for earlier closures.

The defendants, Uber Canada Inc. et al., brought a motion for a protective order to safeguard commercially sensitive information related to class size and promotional data, which they were compelled to disclose under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, in a putative class action.

The plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

Applying the three-part test from Sherman Estate v. Donovan, the court found a strong public interest in protecting such information, that no reasonable alternatives existed, and that the benefits of the order outweighed any negative effects on the open court principle.

The motion was granted, and the protective order was issued.

This is a motion for approval of a class action settlement concerning incidents of glass falling from balconies at Festival Tower, a condominium in Toronto.

The representative plaintiffs sought court approval for the settlement agreement, appointment of a claims administrator, approval of the distribution program, and approval of counsel fees and disbursements.

The court granted the orders sought, finding the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, despite the comparatively minor loss of balcony use compared to similar cases.

The court considered the risks of litigation, including novel claims for loss of use and enjoyment, and the challenges in establishing liability and aggregate damages.

The plaintiff in a putative class action sought court approval for a third-party funding agreement.

The agreement aimed to indemnify the plaintiff for adverse costs in exchange for a share of any litigation proceeds, as the plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining financing from the Class Proceedings Fund.

The court reviewed the agreement against the requirements of the recently amended s. 33.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which codifies the approval process for such agreements.

The court found the agreement fair and reasonable, ensuring plaintiff control over litigation, and confirmed the funder's financial capacity.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The motion was granted, and the third-party funding agreement was approved.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to certify a class proceeding against the defendant bank regarding its practice of charging multiple non-sufficient funds (NSF) fees on re-presented pre-authorized debit transactions.

The court reviewed the five-part test under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

Finding that the pleadings disclosed a cause of action in breach of contract and unjust enrichment, and that the other criteria including an identifiable class and common issues were met, the court granted the consent certification order.

The representative plaintiff, Narcise Alex Kakegabon, brought a motion to vary the certification order in a class proceeding concerning toxic mould on Long Lake No. 58 First Nation's reserve.

The motion sought to remove Kim Orr Barristers P.C. as class counsel and appoint Turan Law Office P.C. as new class counsel, along with ancillary relief.

The plaintiff cited a loss of confidence in the previous counsel due to lack of progress, noting that approximately half of the class members had passed away since certification.

The court, applying the principles from Fantl v. Transamerica, considered the competence of the proposed counsel, the propriety of the choice, and potential prejudice to the class.

Neither the defendant nor the previous class counsel opposed the motion.

The court found no concerns regarding the proposed counsel's competence or the plaintiff's choice, and no prejudice to the class.

The motion was granted.