Jasmine T. Akbarali

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a single-purpose corporation formed to build a commercial dam.

The plaintiff's project failed after delays in obtaining location approval and the subsequent termination of its feed-in tariff contract.

The court found good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets to pay costs and that the plaintiff failed to show a good chance of success on the merits to avoid the order.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post security for costs in stages.

Following the dismissal of a proposed intervener's motion to intervene, the successful party and another intervener sought costs.

The court awarded the successful party elevated costs fixed at $460,000, apportioning liability among the proposed intervener (65%) and the two defendants (17.5% each) due to the defendants' delayed positions which complicated the motion.

The second intervener was awarded $12,500 in costs against the proposed intervener, limited to costs incurred after it first requested them in its factum.

The plaintiff, Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, brought a motion to amend its statement of claim in a long-standing action concerning the Haldimand Tract.

The defendants did not oppose the amendments but sought extensive time to deliver responding expert reports.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a cross-motion to strike portions of the claim that pleaded breaches of duty 'by example'.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding that pleading by example was appropriate given the plaintiff's claim for a complete accounting.

The court granted the motion to amend and set a timeline for the defendants to deliver responding expert evidence, rejecting the defendants' request for a multi-year extension based on their internal retention processes.

Costs of $90,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs in several 2018 class actions (the "2018 actions") brought a motion to temporarily stay overlapping 2022 class actions (the "2022 actions").

Both sets of actions alleged that defendants, as mutual fund trustees and managers, improperly paid trailing commissions.

The 2018 plaintiffs argued that losses were suffered only by those who purchased through discount brokers, while the 2022 plaintiffs contended that losses were incurred by all mutual fund holders, as fees were paid from the funds.

The court granted the temporary stay of the 2022 actions, finding substantial overlap and shared factual background, which would prevent unnecessary duplication of judicial and legal resources.

The court addressed potential prejudice to the 2022 plaintiffs by ordering the suspension of the relevant limitation period and by bifurcating the "separate series" and allocation issues for later litigation, ensuring that the 2022 plaintiffs' interests would be addressed when they diverged from the 2018 plaintiffs.

The applicant, a minor represented by her father, brought an application alleging "health abuse" through ultrasound exposure and unauthorized medical interventions, seeking broad and imprecise relief including rights to employment equality and prevention of asset theft.

The court, on its own initiative under Rule 2.1.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, called for submissions on why the application should not be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The father's submissions did not address the substance of the court's concerns.

The court found the pleaded facts did not link to the relief sought, the relief was imprecise and unsustainable (e.g., seeking restoration of health or prevention of future theft), and dismissed the application.

This endorsement addresses three motions to intervene in a complex, long-standing action by the Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians (SNGR) against the Crown for breaches of duty and treaty obligations related to the Haldimand Proclamation.

The Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) sought to intervene as a party, arguing it represented the true rights-holder and aimed to derail the litigation in favor of nation-to-nation negotiations.

The Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation (MCFN) sought to intervene as a party due to concerns about SNGR's expert evidence impacting MCFN's history and treaty rights.

Men's Fire of the Six Nations Grand River Territory sought to intervene in HDI's motion to oppose it.

The court granted Men's Fire leave to intervene in HDI's motion, denied HDI's motion to intervene in the main action (finding its interest not genuine, an abuse of process, and causing undue delay), and granted MCFN's motion to intervene in the main action with specific terms to manage its participation.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The plaintiff, despite being called upon by the court to make submissions, failed to do so.

The court found the claim to be unclear, lacking a pleaded cause of action, misnaming a defendant, and potentially constituting a collateral attack on a prior judicial decision regarding the plaintiff's treatment.

Consequently, the action was dismissed under Rule 2.1.

The Attorney General of Canada brought a motion seeking leave to examine three expert witnesses before trial.

The parties largely resolved the motion, leaving the court to adjudicate the quantum of interim costs payable by Canada to the plaintiff (Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians) and the costs of the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in interim costs to indemnify for financial prejudice due to duplicated work and early incurred expenses from the pre-trial examinations.

The court declined to award costs for the motion itself, finding that all parties had compromised their positions and no exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award.

The proposed representative plaintiff in a product liability class action sought a protective order to anonymize their identity and seal sensitive personal information due to a history of sexual violence and PTSD, which led to their cannabis use and subsequent Cannabis Hypermesis Syndrome.

The defendants did not oppose the motion.

The court granted the order, applying the Sherman Estate test, finding that court openness posed a serious risk to the plaintiff's well-being and dignity, no reasonable alternatives existed, and the benefits of protecting the plaintiff and encouraging other trauma survivors to access justice outweighed the minimal impact on court openness.

The applicant's application, which sought to relitigate the validity of a mortgage enforcement and alleged criminal offences and Charter breaches, was dismissed under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and abusive, noting that the issues had been previously litigated and that the pleadings failed to establish recognizable civil claims.

This endorsement from a case management conference addressed the timing for the delivery of the defendants' expert reports and the scheduling of motions to amend and strike pleadings.

The defendants sought to vacate expert report deadlines, arguing new claims required new experts.

The court largely denied this, granting only a brief extension for expert reports to June 9, 2023, with an exception for an ill expert.

The court also granted leave for the defendants' cross-motion to strike portions of the pleading, ordering it to be heard concurrently with the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend on June 30, 2023, emphasizing the need to settle pleading propriety before summer.

The plaintiff brought an urgent ex parte motion seeking a preservation order over cryptocurrency, a worldwide Mareva injunction, and an Anton Piller order against the defendants for an outstanding balance of $300,000 USD from a cryptocurrency exchange.

The court granted the preservation order and the Anton Piller order with modifications to protect solicitor-client privilege, but dismissed the Mareva injunction, finding no sufficient risk of asset dissipation to avoid judgment.

The applicants brought a motion for various relief including reconstituting the board of directors of AMPERe and piercing the corporate veil.

The respondents brought a cross-motion for injunctive relief and damages.

The court adjourned the motion due to procedural deficiencies, including poorly organized materials, lack of notice to affected non-parties, and insufficient time scheduled for the hearing.

The court ordered an urgent case conference and granted interim interim relief restraining all parties from dealing with the company's property without consent.

The plaintiffs in this class proceeding moved to amend their statement of claim to add a new cause of action related to an "investment spread" and sought certification of a new common issue.

The defendant opposed, arguing the claim was time-barred and the amendment would fundamentally alter the certified action.

The defendant also moved to strike portions of the plaintiffs' expert report as irrelevant.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion to amend, finding the claim discoverable in 2016 and thus out of time, and that the amendment would cause non-compensable prejudice and delay.

The court granted the defendant's motion to strike the expert report portions related to the investment spread and profitability, deeming them irrelevant to the certified common issues.

This endorsement addresses the sequencing of motions in a series of related class actions.

The 2018 plaintiffs sought a temporary stay of the 2022 actions.

The defendants proposed hearing the stay motion concurrently with their summary judgment motions, citing limitation period defenses.

The 2022 plaintiffs argued for their certification motion to proceed if the stay was delayed.

The court, acting as case management judge, directed that the motion to stay be heard first, finding no significant efficiencies in combining it with the summary judgment motions and stating that certification motions should only proceed after summary judgment motions are determined.

The respondents requested the court consider dismissing the applicant's claim under Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging it was frivolous, vexatious, or abusive.

The court found the claim did not clearly plead a tenable case and referenced related litigation, suggesting abuse.

The court ordered the registrar to issue a Form 2.1A notice to the applicant, requiring submissions on why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant's action was stayed pending the outcome of the written hearing, and further filings were restricted.

The plaintiff, David Trueman, in a proposed class action, sought leave to amend the Fourth Amended Statement of Claim to add a new sub-class and particularize existing claims.

The proposed amendments related to allegations that Rogers Communications and Rogers Bank obtained private credit information through unauthorized soft credit checks to pre-approve and issue unsolicited credit cards, in breach of privacy rights and contract.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendments introduced a new, time-barred claim based on a breach of Bank Act regulations.

The court found that the amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but rather particularized existing claims for breach of contract and privacy, with the issuance of unsolicited credit cards being a consequence of the alleged wrongful conduct.

Therefore, no limitation period issue arose.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the statement of claim and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs moved for an order refusing confirmation of an Associate Justice's report concerning a fixed-price construction contract dispute.

The plaintiffs challenged findings related to extra costs, admissions in a Scott Schedule, and deficiencies/uncompleted work.

The court largely upheld the Associate Justice's findings, affirming the fixed-price nature of the contract and the requirement for written authorization for extras.

However, the court found that the Associate Justice overlooked a $4,500 concession by the defendants in the Scott Schedule regarding drywall charges, granting the plaintiffs this additional credit.

The court also upheld the original costs award from the Associate Justice's report and awarded the defendants $4,000 in costs for the current motion, reflecting their overall success.

This case conference endorsement addresses several procedural issues in a complex litigation involving Six Nations of the Grand River Band of Indians, the Attorney General of Canada, and His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario.

Key issues include determining the venue for upcoming intervention motions, managing requests for participation from individuals in response to public notices, addressing the filing of a redacted motion record to protect privacy, setting procedures for evidentiary objections, approving a minor change to the online notice regarding hearing dates, and providing detailed CaseLines directions for electronic document management.

The court provided specific instructions for each of these procedural aspects to ensure the efficient and transparent progression of the litigation.

This case management conference addressed the plaintiff's proposed amended statement of claim and the defendants' request to vary the timetable for expert reports.

The court scheduled the motion to amend the statement of claim.

Regarding the expert reports, the court was prepared to consider an extension but required more specific information from the defendants regarding which reports needed expansion, why, and the estimated time required, rather than vacating the date outright.

A further case management conference was scheduled to address the expert report timetable.