Shahana Kar

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to commence a class action against the Crown and Crown employees for losses suffered from investments in syndicated mortgage investments marketed by Tier 1 Transaction Advisory Services Inc. The defendants moved to strike an affidavit from Krista Zingel on the grounds that she is not a compellable witness under the Public Service of Ontario Act, 2006.

The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of that Act.

During cross-examination of the defendant Monid on his affidavit, the plaintiffs sought rulings on the propriety of objections to various questions.

The court ruled on the scope of cross-examination on a leave motion, considering relevance, proportionality, and improper legal argument.

The court considered a motion to strike or exclude expert reports filed by the plaintiffs in a proposed class action concerning alleged regulatory failures in the oversight of syndicated mortgage investments.

The court found that the expert evidence was relevant to the leave motion but ultimately struck the affidavit of one expert and portions of another for lack of impartiality and proper qualifications.

The decision clarifies the threshold requirements for admissibility of expert evidence, including relevance, qualifications, and impartiality, in the context of motions for leave under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019.

This is an appeal concerning the application of limitation periods to tort claims, including sexual assault, against a police officer.

The motion judge had dismissed the appellant's motions to strike and for summary judgment, finding that the sexual assault allegations triggered s. 16(1)(h) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that s. 16(1.3) extended this to related torts due to the officer's position of trust.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision regarding the application of s. 16(1.3) to claims against the perpetrator and related torts, but set aside the declaration that no limitation period applied to all claims, stating this ultimate determination should be left to the trial judge.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed, affirming the motion judge's award.

Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario sought to lift a stay on its $330 billion health care cost recovery action against three tobacco companies (JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc.) and eleven co-defendants, which was imposed under CCAA proceedings.

Ontario proposed to temporarily stay the effects of any judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, emphasizing the need to preserve the status quo in CCAA proceedings to facilitate a global resolution of significant claims.

Allowing Ontario's action to proceed would alter the level playing field, distract from restructuring efforts, and impose significant costs, prejudicing other stakeholders.

The applicants, JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Imperial Tobacco Company Limited, and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., sought protection under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) following a $13.5 billion judgment from the Quebec Court of Appeal and other ongoing litigation.

JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. moved for orders to file Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) leave applications but suspend further proceedings.

Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited and Imperial Tobacco Company Limited sought a blanket stay of all proceedings and limitation periods.

The Quebec class action plaintiffs opposed the motions and sought to partially lift the stay.

The court affirmed its broad jurisdiction under CCAA s. 11 to stay all actions, including appellate proceedings and limitation periods.

The court dismissed the motion by JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and granted Imperial Tobacco's motion, finding that a blanket stay best preserved the status quo and facilitated a global resolution for all stakeholders.

The applicant property management company collected rent on behalf of landlords and deposited the funds into trust accounts.

After the applicant accrued tax arrears, the respondent issued requirements to pay and garnished funds from the applicant’s bank accounts.

The applicant sought declarations in the Superior Court that the seized funds belonged to the landlords, that the respondent could not seize them, and an order requiring the return of the funds.

The court held that the substance of the relief sought amounted to injunctive relief against a federal board exercising statutory tax‑collection powers.

Under s. 18 of the Federal Court Act, such remedies fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court.

The Superior Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested orders.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a paragraph of the plaintiff’s statement of claim seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the Canada Revenue Agency from collecting outstanding tax liabilities.

The underlying action alleged torts including misrepresentation, breach of contract, misfeasance in public office, and intentional interference with economic relations arising from the handling of a taxpayer relief application.

The court held that s. 18 of the Federal Courts Act grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Court to issue injunctions against federal boards, commissions, or tribunals, including the CRA when exercising tax collection powers.

Although superior courts retain jurisdiction over damages claims against the Crown grounded in tort or contract, they cannot grant injunctive relief against such federal entities.

The impugned paragraph seeking injunctive relief was therefore struck without leave to amend.

The applicants sought a representation order under Rule 10.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permitting them to represent 416 claimants who had used payroll processing services and alleged that trust funds were misapplied by a bank.

The underlying dispute concerned funds withdrawn from employers’ accounts for payroll and tax remittances that were deposited into mixed trust accounts and partially applied to reduce the payroll processor’s indebtedness to the bank or transferred to a related entity.

The bank opposed the representation order, arguing that two separate transactions created distinct issues among claimants.

The court held that common issues existed because liability for the alleged breaches of trust would affect all claimants collectively and distribution of any recovery would be shared.

A representation order was granted and a related unopposed motion concerning distribution of funds held by a government agency was also authorized.