Jonah Arnold

The plaintiffs, family members of victims killed when Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS 752 was shot down by Iranian missiles, brought a motion for default judgment seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The court awarded $1 million in compensatory damages under the Family Law Act for loss of guidance, care, and companionship, and $6 million under the Trustee Act for the victims' pain and suffering prior to death.

The court declined to award solatium or aggravated damages, finding them unavailable under Ontario law.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court awarded $100 million in punitive damages to punish, deter, and denounce the defendants' intentional terrorist act.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment on liability against the Islamic Republic of Iran and other Iranian defendants for the intentional shooting down of Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS 752.

The court found that the missile attacks were intentional and did not occur during an armed conflict, thereby constituting terrorist activity under the Criminal Code.

The court held that the defendants' state immunity was lifted under the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act, granting default judgment on liability and awarding full indemnity costs to the plaintiffs.

Two competing groups of plaintiffs sought carriage of a proposed class action against the Islamic Republic of Iran and Ukraine International Airlines arising from the downing of Flight PS752.

The Arsalani plaintiffs relied on the commercial activity exception to state immunity, while the Gorji plaintiffs relied on the terrorist activity exception.

The court awarded carriage to the Arsalani plaintiffs, finding their funding agreement, fee structure, counsel experience, and inclusion of the airline as a defendant from the outset made their action in the best interests of the class.

The Gorji and Zarei actions were stayed.

The moving parties sought an order preventing a lawyer from acting for the opposing party at trial due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from a prior solicitor-client relationship with the moving party’s principal.

The court considered whether confidential information had been shared during the earlier retainer and applied the principles governing disqualification of counsel, including those articulated in MacDonald Estate v Martin.

The court preferred the evidence of the moving party’s principal that confidential information regarding financial circumstances and litigation strategy had been disclosed.

Given the partnership relationship within the law firm and the absence of any ethical screen, the court found a reasonable risk that such information could be used to the prejudice of the former client.

The integrity of the justice system outweighed the responding party’s right to counsel of choice, and the lawyer and his firm were prohibited from acting in the trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, a prosthodontist, for damages arising from dental malpractice.

The defendant had extracted all of the plaintiff's teeth and caused severe infections, temporomandibular joint disorder, and other injuries.

The court held that liability was established by the default and awarded the plaintiff $163,484.01 in special damages and $150,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, plus costs.