Jasmine T. Akbarali

The applicants sought to set aside a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitral tribunal's damages award, arguing the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, breached procedural fairness, and rendered an award contrary to Canadian public policy.

The tribunal had previously found Canada breached its NAFTA obligations regarding an environmental assessment for a proposed quarry, but in the damages phase, awarded only $7 million USD for the lost opportunity of a fair assessment rather than the $440 million claimed for lost profits.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the tribunal correctly applied the international law standard of proof, did not breach natural justice in its procedural rulings regarding expert reports, and rendered a decision that was not contrary to public policy.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former investment advisor and his corporate entities for civil fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion.

The defendants had convinced the unsophisticated plaintiffs to withdraw $350,000 from their RRSPs for a fictitious start-up investment, but instead misappropriated the funds for their own benefit, including purchasing a heavily leveraged property.

The court granted default judgment, awarding compensatory damages that accounted for the lost funds and tax consequences, $75,000 in punitive damages for the defendants' highly reprehensible conduct, and $92,000 in full indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious abuse of the litigation process.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated July 11, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondents in the fixed amount of $21,000 all inclusive.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dietrich J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal the order of Koehnen J. dated June 9, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use, arguing the application was retaliatory and in bad faith under s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The tenants also brought a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the fresh evidence motion, finding the documents were available before the hearing and were an attempt to reargue facts.

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the tenants' arguments regarding retaliation, the landlord's conduct, and procedural fairness were essentially challenges to the LTB's factual findings, which do not constitute extricable errors of law.

The third party, Onward, moved to permanently stay the main action based on a release containing a no-claims-over clause that the plaintiff had signed in its favour.

The defendant, Enercare, had commenced a third-party claim against Onward for contribution and indemnity.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had expressly waived its right to recover any damages attributable to Onward's fault in its amended statement of claim.

Applying the principle from Taylor v. Canada, the court held that this waiver eliminated any viable claim-over by Enercare against Onward, meaning the main action was not a prohibited proceeding under the release.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' statement of defence due to the defendants' failure to pay outstanding costs orders totaling $52,500.

The defendants sought an adjournment, which was denied as they failed to provide evidence or a reasonable explanation for their delay.

The court found that the defendants had engaged in a pattern of behaviour designed to abuse the court's process, delay the proceedings, and cause the plaintiffs to incur wasted costs.

Applying the principles from Atlas Copco, the court struck the statement of defence and awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs of $18,500.

The applicant sought a declaration that two contingency fee retainer agreements signed with the respondent law firm were non-compliant with the Solicitors Act and Regulation 195/04.

The court found numerous significant deficiencies in the retainers, including the failure to state that the client retains the right to make critical decisions and the failure to provide an example of how the fee is calculated.

Exercising its inherent jurisdiction, the court declared the retainer agreements void and directed an assessment of the respondent's account.

Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the applicant.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding sought approval of the long-form and short-form notices to be distributed to affected class members following a previously approved settlement.

The court approved the notices, finding them to be in plain language and clear regarding participation and opt-out procedures.

The court also permitted the notices to be distributed in English only, as the defendant only provided services in English.

Following the dismissal of their motion for leave to proceed under the Securities Act and for class certification, the plaintiffs brought a consent motion to discontinue the action without costs.

The court granted the motion, finding that discontinuance was appropriate and would not prejudice putative class members, as notice of the class proceeding had never been circulated.

The court also approved the proposed Notice of Discontinuance and Notice Plan.

In a supplementary decision on a motion for leave to commence a secondary market securities class action, the court considered whether certain disclosures constituted public corrections of alleged misrepresentations made by the defendants in February and March 2012 regarding a mining project's capital expenditure budget and schedule.

The court found a reasonable possibility that the plaintiffs could prove the July 2012 disclosure was a partial public correction, but rejected subsequent disclosures in November 2012 and April 2013 as public corrections.

Leave was granted to proceed with the misrepresentation claims against the corporate defendant and two individual certifying officers.

The applicant, an automobile parts manufacturer, sought a determination of liability insurance coverage from its insurers after settling a product liability claim for $24 million USD.

The dispute centered on when the respondent's umbrella coverage responded and the quantum of the claim.

The court held that the umbrella coverage responded once the primary policy limits were exhausted, and that the applicant was entitled to recover the balance of its loss, including forecast repair costs, totaling $13.4 million USD.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain their former employee, the defendant, from competing, soliciting clients or employees, and using confidential information.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as their allegations were based on suspicion rather than clear evidence.

The balance of convenience also heavily favoured the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $40,000.

The applicants, representing members of Ontario's Sinhalese diaspora, brought applications challenging the constitutionality of the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, 2021.

They argued the Act was ultra vires the province and violated their rights under sections 2(b) and 15 of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that the Act is in pith and substance related to education, which falls within provincial jurisdiction.

The court further held that the Act does not restrict freedom of expression, nor does it create a discriminatory distinction based on enumerated or analogous grounds.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action for settlement purposes, approve a $105,000 settlement, and approve class counsel fees and a representative plaintiff honorarium.

The class action alleged that the defendants misclassified event staffing workers as independent contractors rather than employees, depriving them of minimum employment standards.

The court certified the action for settlement purposes, finding the criteria under s. 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act were met.

The court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable given the significant risk of non-recovery due to the corporate defendant ceasing operations.

Class counsel fees of $50,454.50 plus disbursements were approved, and the representative plaintiff was awarded a $4,000 honorarium.

The plaintiff sought an order to discontinue a putative class action alleging secondary market misrepresentations under the Securities Act.

Due to developments in jurisprudence regarding limitation periods and the inability to find a representative plaintiff for the remaining viable primary market claims, the plaintiff concluded the action was no longer viable.

The court granted leave to discontinue the action on a without-costs basis and approved the proposed notice plan.

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.

The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The plaintiff purchaser failed to close a real estate transaction after being unable to secure financing.

The defendant vendor subsequently sold the property for a higher price and brought a summary judgment motion to retain the $70,000 deposit.

The plaintiff sought relief from forfeiture, arguing she lacked capacity due to mental health struggles when signing the agreement.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding no inequality of bargaining power or improvident bargain, and ordered the deposit forfeited.

The appellants, affiliated concrete suppliers, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision upholding the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' cancellation of their Commercial Vehicle Operator's Registration (CVOR).

The cancellation followed a history of poor safety compliance and four fatal collisions involving the appellants' drivers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Tribunal's assessment of management's responsibility, the preventability of the collisions, or the appellants' safety record.

The Court also held that the permanent cancellation of the CVOR was not a disproportionate sanction given the ongoing safety problems and the need to protect the public.