Mohsen Seddigh

In a defamation appeal arising from newspaper and social media publications targeting the respondent, the appellants challenged liability, damages, costs, and the scope of a permanent injunction.

The Court of Appeal held that statute-barred earlier publications were admitted only for background and context, that the proceeding properly continued under the ordinary procedure after the defence objected to Rule 76, and that damages in defamation were presumed once the elements of the tort were established.

However, the court found the permanent injunction impermissibly broad, disproportionate, and insufficiently precise for enforcement.

The appeal was therefore allowed in part only to set aside and remit the injunctive term for properly defined wording, with appeal costs awarded to the appellants.

Case management direction on scheduling intervention motions and the hearing date for an appeal from the dismissal of a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding alleging systemic failures in the child welfare system respecting Indigenous children in out-of-home care off-reserve, including over-representation in care and gaps in essential services such as health and education.

The case management judge directed that intervention motion materials be filed by March 5, 2026, responding materials by April 10, 2026, and intervention motions be heard May 8, 2026.

The appeal was scheduled for two days in June or early fall 2026.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a class action on behalf of Indigenous children living off-reserve who have been through Ontario's child welfare system, along with their caregiving parents and grandparents, and Indigenous children who have experienced gaps and delays in accessing essential services such as education and health services.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the claim lacked a viable cause of action, failed to establish an identifiable class, lacked common issues, and was not a preferable procedure for resolution.

The court held that the claim impugned broad government policies and funding decisions rather than specific wrongful acts, raising justiciability concerns.

The court also found that the representative plaintiffs could not succeed as they were attempting a collateral attack on valid court orders.

Two proposed class actions were brought against consumer loan companies for allegedly engaging in unlawful business practices that misled consumers into signing loan agreements in breach of consumer protection legislation.

The plaintiffs sought interim motions for temporary stays of hundreds of related proceedings (primarily in Small Claims Court) pending final disposition of the class actions.

At a case conference, the court determined the sequencing of motions and set a litigation timetable.

The court ordered that the interim stay motions be heard before certification, finding that fairness and efficiency dictated this sequencing to prevent the defendants' enforcement actions from effectively mooting the class proceedings.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted a conditional stay of a summary judgment and writ of possession in a mortgage enforcement action.

The moving parties, unrepresented at trial, sought a stay pending appeal after summary judgment was granted against them and a writ of possession issued.

The court found that while the original grounds of appeal did not raise a serious question to be tried, a new ground—whether the summary judgment process was appropriate given evidence of conflict of interest and lack of independent legal advice—did raise a serious question.

The court held that denying a stay could cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties.

The stay was granted until July 25, 2025, with a further extension conditional on amending the grounds of appeal.

The plaintiff succeeded in a libel action arising from newspaper articles and Facebook posts portraying her as a scammer who defrauded migrant workers of millions of dollars.

The court held that the publications were plainly defamatory and that the defendants failed to establish justification, responsible communication, fair comment, or statutory privilege.

The court also rejected reliance on Small Claims Court judgments as proving the sting of the allegations, and held that the Libel and Slander Act barred only the 2020 newspaper publications, not the timely 2022 article or personal social media republications.

General damages of $150,000 and punitive damages of $100,000 were awarded.

This decision approves a class action settlement and distribution protocol regarding predatory and unconscionable equipment lease agreements, including the registration of Notices of Security Interests (NOSIs) on consumers’ homes.

The court finds the settlement fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, considering the risks of continued litigation, the insolvency of several defendants, and the benefits achieved, including monetary compensation, lease cancellations, and legislative reform.

The court also approves class counsel fees, disbursements, a Class Proceedings Fund levy, and an honorarium for the lead plaintiff.

This decision concerns a certified class proceeding that is progressing towards a settlement approval hearing.

The plaintiffs brought an unopposed motion to appoint Verita Global as the administrator for the implementation of the proposed settlement.

Class counsel, after a request for proposals process, recommended Verita Global based on its extensive experience, capacity to serve vulnerable individuals, communication abilities, reporting, budget, and cybersecurity certification.

The court found class counsel's choice appropriate and approved the appointment of Verita Global as the settlement administrator.

The court addressed two related putative class proceedings concerning predatory equipment lease agreements.

The plaintiffs sought to amend pleadings, add parties, consolidate the actions, certify the consolidated proceeding for settlement, and approve the notice plan.

The court granted all motions, finding that the criteria for class certification under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, were met in the context of a proposed settlement, and that a class proceeding was the preferable procedure, especially given ongoing CCAA proceedings.

The notice plan for the settlement approval hearing was also approved.

The defendant landlord moved under Rule 49.09 to enforce a settlement agreement against the plaintiff tenant.

The settlement required the plaintiff to pay the reasonable costs of removing its commercial signage from the building.

After the plaintiff delayed the removal, the defendant hired its own contractor for $7,175.50, an amount nearly identical to the plaintiff's own quote.

The court found the defendant's request for reimbursement reasonable and ordered the plaintiff to pay the amount, plus substantial indemnity costs, noting the litigation was unnecessary.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to certify a class action against Ticketmaster regarding its secondary ticket market practices.

The plaintiffs alleged that Ticketmaster knowingly facilitated or turned a blind eye to professional resellers using bots and multiple accounts to bypass primary market ticket limits, contrary to its Terms of Use and Purchase Policy.

The court certified the class action for claims of breach of contract, breach of ticketing legislation, unlawful means conspiracy, negligence, and unjust enrichment.

However, the court found that the claims under the Competition Act and consumer protection legislation did not disclose a cause of action because the plaintiffs failed to plead a sufficient causal connection between the alleged misrepresentations and their damages.

The court also dismissed Ticketmaster's motion to strike the plaintiffs' expert reports, finding them admissible and relevant to establishing a methodology for calculating aggregate damages.

This appeal concerned a proposed class action by inmates and their families against Bell Canada and the Ontario government regarding allegedly unreasonable and unconscionable collect call rates from correctional facilities.

The motion judge had dismissed claims for an ultra vires tax and a Telecommunications Act breach, and permanently stayed other claims (unjust enrichment, consumer protection, unconscionable contracts, breach of fiduciary duty), deferring to the CRTC's jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of the ultra vires tax claim, finding the commissions paid to Ontario were proprietary/contractual charges, not taxes.

However, the Court substituted the permanent stay with a temporary stay for the remaining claims.

This was to allow the CRTC to first determine whether it had forborne from regulating these specific rates and, if not, to adjudicate their reasonableness, ensuring access to justice for the appellants if the CRTC declined jurisdiction.

A carriage motion was brought to determine which of two competing proposed class actions regarding allegedly misleading 'recyclable' claims on Keurig coffee pods should proceed in Ontario.

The court evaluated the competing proposals under section 13.1(4) of the Class Proceedings Act, focusing on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court awarded carriage to the Buis action, finding its narrower class definition and reliance on a damages model already utilized in a U.S. settlement offered a more efficient path to resolution.

The competing Gordon action was stayed.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action on behalf of prisoners and their families, alleging that Bell Canada and Ontario charged unconscionable rates for collect calls from provincial correctional facilities.

The plaintiffs sought certification, while the defendants brought cross-motions to stay the action, arguing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) had exclusive jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice struck the plaintiffs' claims for an ultra vires tax and breach of the Telecommunications Act, finding it plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court permanently stayed the remaining claims, concluding that the pith and substance of the dispute concerned telecommunications rates, which fall squarely within the specialized jurisdiction and remedial authority of the CRTC.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for delay under Rule 48.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion judge had found they failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the delay, a cumulative component of the test affirmed in Faris v. Eftimovski.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's determination that the appellants' explanation for the delay was not acceptable, thus failing to satisfy one of the two necessary components to prevent dismissal.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action against General Motors, Bosch, and a GM dealer, alleging that certain diesel vehicles contained 'defeat devices' designed to cheat emissions tests.

The plaintiffs sought certification of the class action, while the defendants moved to strike the statement of claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court dismissed the certification motion and struck the statement of claim without leave to amend, finding that because the regulator (the EPA) had not taken any action and the vehicles had valid Certificates of Conformity, there was no basis in fact for the alleged regulatory breach, misrepresentation, or compensable harm.

This decision resolves a carriage motion between two competing proposed class actions (the Bonnick Action and the Blackford-Hall Action) concerning alleged predatory practices in the consumer marketplace for HVAC equipment.

The court interpreted the newly enacted section 13.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, which focuses on efficiency, productivity, and proportionality.

The court granted carriage to the Bonnick Action, finding its regional scope and targeted case theory against the alleged mastermind and lender corporations to be more efficient and cost-effective than the Blackford-Hall Action's national scope and broader conspiracy claims against multiple defendants.

In a proposed class action regarding the rates charged for collect calls made by prisoners in Ontario correctional facilities, the plaintiffs brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit sworn by an employee of the defendant telecommunications company.

The plaintiffs argued the affiant was improperly giving expert opinion evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the affiant was providing factual evidence regarding the regulatory framework and the operation of the telephone system, not expert opinion.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their motion for certification of a class proceeding regarding emissions 'defeat devices' in certain diesel vehicles.

The motions judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as the vehicles had been recalled and repaired, and there was no evidence of compensable loss.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's conclusion that a class action was not the preferable procedure.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motion for certification in an emissions defeat device class action, the successful defendants sought costs totaling $965,012 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued for a maximum award of $125,000, noting their own costs were $550,263.

The court fixed costs at $560,000 all-inclusive on a partial indemnity scale, finding this amount fair and reasonable given the complexity of the issues, the number of defendant groups, and the costs reasonably incurred by the plaintiffs themselves.