Munaf Mohamed

The appellants sought production of trust ledgers of the respondents' law firms and unredacted bank statements in a civil fraud action, arguing that the records were necessary to trace funds and determine if the respondents breached Mareva injunctions.

The courts below held that the trust ledgers were presumptively privileged, the presumption was not rebutted, and the crime-fraud exception did not apply.

The Divisional Court also remitted the issue of privilege over the unredacted bank statements to the motion judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and the presumption was not rebutted.

The Court also held that while the crime-fraud exception could apply in a civil action for fraud or breach of a court order, the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for its application.

The Court found no error in remitting the bank statements issue to the motion judge.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

Both the moving parties and the responding parties sought leave to appeal a decision of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving parties' motion for leave to appeal on the basis that the issue was moot in the context of the case.

The responding parties' motion for leave to appeal was granted, with costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to compel the production of law firm trust ledgers and unredacted bank statements from the respondents.

The underlying action involves allegations of a massive international civil fraud.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that the law firm trust ledgers were presumptively privileged and that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption.

The Court also agreed that the 'future crimes and fraud' exception to solicitor-client privilege did not apply to civil fraud.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the motion judge erred in presuming privilege over redacted entries in non-law firm bank statements without requiring the respondents to prove the privilege claim.

The issue of the unredacted bank statements was remitted to the motion judge.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants, Saad Aljabri and Mohammed Aljabri, to produce law firm trust ledgers and to answer certain questions from examinations.

The court held that trust ledgers are presumptively protected by solicitor-client privilege and that the plaintiffs failed to rebut this presumption.

The court further concluded that the "crime/fraud" exception to solicitor-client privilege does not apply to civil wrongs, including civil fraud, following the principle of horizontal stare decisis.

Consequently, the motion to compel production of trust ledgers was dismissed.

The motion to compel Mohammed Aljabri to answer undertakings and other questions was allowed, subject to redactions for privileged information in bank statements.

This motion concerned a request for a stay pending appeal of a judgment secured by Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC) after a bifurcated liability hearing in a breach of contract action.

The moving parties (Orion entities) sought a full stay of the underlying action and their appeal.

The court dismissed the motion for a full stay of the underlying action but granted a partial stay against two specific respondents, Bellatrix Ltd. and Orion Mine Finance (Master) Fund I LP, preventing enforcement actions without leave, due to the apparent strength of their appeals regarding corporate separateness.

The court also ordered a stay of the appeal itself (COA-23-CV-1029) pending the conclusion of the underlying trial to promote judicial efficiency and avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants (Moving Parties) sought an order for the issuance of two letters of request to judicial authorities in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to compel the examination of two witnesses, Yasir O. Al-Rumayyan and Fahad Nasser Alarfaj.

The Moving Parties argued these witnesses had relevant evidence for their motion to set aside Mareva orders, particularly regarding alleged contradictory positions taken by the plaintiffs (controlled by Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund) in this action versus unrelated U.S. litigation (LIV Golf Litigation) concerning PIF's independence from the KSA government.

The motion was unopposed by the plaintiffs.

The court found the proposed witnesses had prima facie relevant evidence and that the requirements under Rules 39.03 and 34.07(2) for examining non-parties and issuing letters of request for witnesses outside Canada were met.

The order for letters of request was granted.

The defendants appealed an interlocutory order regarding the admissibility and production of compelled evidence in a civil contempt motion arising from alleged breaches of a Mareva order.

The plaintiffs cross-appealed the motion judge's decision that answers to undertakings and further document production could not be compelled while the contempt motion was outstanding.

The Divisional Court upheld the motion judge's finding that evidence compelled prior to the contempt motion was admissible and did not violate sections 7, 11(c), or 13 of the Charter.

However, the court allowed the cross-appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in prematurely ruling on the admissibility of future answers to undertakings and in deferring the production motion.

The court held that the obligation to comply with the Mareva order continues despite the contempt motion, and admissibility should be determined when the evidence is tendered, based on whether the contempt motion is predominantly coercive or penal.

Sakab Saudi Holding Company and others brought a motion seeking access to a redacted "proffer" provided by Saad Al Jabri to the Attorney General of Canada for review under section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Sakab argued that Al Jabri's assertion of litigation privilege over the proffer was an abuse of process designed to exclude them from the section 38 proceedings.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, holding that Sakab was not excluded from the process and could still make meaningful submissions on the relevance of the sensitive information without access to the redacted proffer.

The Court emphasized that the section 38 process is flexible and designed to ensure fairness while protecting national security information.

This is an appeal from a motion judge's decision to assume jurisdiction over foreign defendants in a complex international fraud and conspiracy case.

The respondents (original plaintiffs) alleged that a Toronto resident orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate billions of dollars from Saudi Arabian corporations and dissipate them globally, with the assistance of family members and various corporate entities.

The appellants (foreign defendants) challenged Ontario's jurisdiction, arguing a lack of real and substantial connection.

The motion judge found jurisdiction based on contracts made in Ontario (including a gift deed central to the alleged scheme), property located in Ontario, and the tort of conspiracy being committed in Ontario.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding factual errors or legal errors in applying the Van Breda test for jurisdiction, and dismissed the appeal.

The defendant, Dr. Saad, sought a declaratory order that evidence he would provide in support of a renewed motion to stay the action would be inadmissible in a pending contempt proceeding against him, relying on the s. 13 Charter right against self-incrimination.

The Plaintiffs opposed, arguing the evidence was not compelled and the proceedings were not "other proceedings." The court dismissed Dr. Saad's motion, holding that his evidence on the stay motion was not statutorily compelled, and therefore s. 13 of the Charter was not engaged.

The court clarified that the proper time to seek use immunity would be at the contempt hearing itself.

The defendants and plaintiffs both brought motions for leave to appeal an order regarding the admissibility of evidence in a civil contempt proceeding.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal on four issues concerning the application of sections 7 and 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to evidence compelled pursuant to a Mareva order and undertakings.

The court directed that the defendant be the appellant and the plaintiffs be the cross-appellants.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants, alleging they breached a Mareva injunction by using frozen assets to pay for living and legal expenses.

In response, the defendants brought several procedural motions.

Dr. Saad moved to strike compelled evidence from the plaintiffs' contempt motion record, arguing it violated his Charter rights against self-incrimination.

The court dismissed this motion, finding that a contempt motion is not 'other proceedings' under s. 13 and that ss. 7 and 11(c) did not apply to previously compelled evidence.

Dr. Saad also moved under Rule 21 to exclude prior judicial rulings made in the civil action from the contempt motion.

The court granted this motion, holding that findings made on a civil standard are inadmissible in a quasi-criminal contempt proceeding.

The plaintiffs moved to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and produce documents.

The court ordered Dr. Saad to answer undertakings but ruled the answers could not be used in the contempt motion, and declined to order further document production that would conscript the defendants to assist in their own prosecution.

The court also limited the plaintiffs' disclosure obligations to the alleged breach, refusing broad discovery on the underlying fraud.

Finally, the court dismissed Mohammed's motion to stay the contempt proceedings pending his appeal on jurisdiction.

The defendants (appellants) brought a motion for a stay of a lower court order that found Ontario had jurisdiction over a complex fraud action involving alleged misappropriation of billions of dollars by a former Saudi cabinet minister and related entities.

The motion judge had established jurisdiction on five grounds, including contracts made in Ontario, a gift deed executed in Ontario, assets in Ontario, acts of conspiracy in Ontario, and a real and substantial connection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the stay motion, finding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, particularly because the plaintiffs provided an undertaking not to assert attornment if the defendants participated in the Mareva injunction proceedings.

The court clarified that court-ordered participation or participation under such an undertaking generally does not constitute voluntary submission to jurisdiction.

The balance of convenience also favoured the plaintiffs due to the risk of asset dissipation.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to dismiss or permanently stay the action against them, arguing the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs alleged a massive international fraudulent scheme involving the misappropriation of $3.5 billion USD, with funds allegedly traced to the moving parties.

The court applied the Van Breda test and found a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on contracts formed in the province, property located in Ontario, and the necessity of hearing the claim as a whole in a single jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the plaintiffs.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal in a brief endorsement.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs to the responding parties in the agreed amount of $10,000.

This complex motion involved the defendants, Dr. Saad and the Canadian Companies, seeking to set aside ex parte Mareva injunctions, Norwich orders, and receivership orders previously granted to the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued material non-disclosure by the plaintiffs, particularly regarding the political motivations behind the litigation and the legitimate commercial relationships between the parties.

The plaintiffs sought to continue and vary the orders.

The court found no material non-disclosure sufficient to set aside the Mareva order against Dr. Saad, continuing it.

However, the Norwich and Receivership orders against the Canadian Companies were set aside due to non-material but impactful non-disclosure that changed the factual landscape, making the orders overly broad.

The court also addressed the application of the deemed undertaking rule for documents obtained through Norwich orders.

The appellant landowner sought compensation from the respondent pipeline company for reclamation work on an expropriated easement.

After a protracted dispute involving two arbitration committees and a discontinued court action, the second Arbitration Committee awarded the appellant his costs for all proceedings.

The Federal Court of Appeal set aside this award.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that the standard of review for the Committee's interpretation of its home statute regarding costs is reasonableness.

The Court found the Committee reasonably interpreted section 99(1) of the National Energy Board Act to award costs for both arbitration proceedings and the related court action, consistent with the principle of full compensation in expropriation law.

The parties entered into a joint venture for a golf course and residential development.

They reached a prior oral agreement regarding the dimensions of the land subject to a development option.

The appellant fraudulently drafted the written contract to reflect a much smaller parcel of land, and the respondent signed it without reading the specific clause.

When the respondent discovered the error, he sought rectification of the contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the trial judge's decision to grant rectification, finding that the respondent's lack of due diligence in reading the contract was not a bar to equitable relief, particularly given the appellant's fraud.

However, the Court declined to restore the trial judge's award of punitive damages, concluding that the substantial compensatory damages awarded were sufficient to achieve the goals of retribution, deterrence, and denunciation.