Mark H. 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 respondent purchased a commercial condominium unit with an exclusive use designation for a dental clinic and leased it to the appellant dentist.

Near the end of the lease, the appellant secretly purchased an adjacent unit, moved his practice there, and purported to assign the exclusive use designation to his new unit in perpetuity.

The application judge held that the appellant could only assign the exclusive use right for the duration of his lease term.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge correctly applied contractual interpretation principles and the nemo dat principle to conclude that the tenant could not permanently divest the owner of its exclusive use right.

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 applicant condominium corporation sought to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed its claim against the respondent unit owners for allegedly breaching a Section 98 Agreement regarding renovations.

The applicant argued the award was obtained by fraud based on new evidence from former board members.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove fraud, did not act with due diligence, and the new evidence would not have changed the outcome.

The court also denied leave to appeal, concluding the arbitrator's interpretation of the agreement was a question of mixed fact and law, and any legal errors would not significantly affect the parties' rights.

Following a jury trial in a solicitor's negligence action where the plaintiffs were awarded $190,000, the court determined the issue of costs.

Although the plaintiffs beat their offer to settle, the court departed from the prima facie rule of substantial indemnity costs due to the improper conduct of plaintiffs' counsel and the perverse nature of the jury's damages findings.

Applying the principle of proportionality under Rule 1.1, the court significantly reduced the plaintiffs' costs claim from $237,535.25 to $129,316 on a partial indemnity scale.