Justin Nasseri

Partner

jnasseri@rossnasseri.com 416-613-7897

BAR ADMISSION: Ontario 2013
Law Clerk: Amanda Hostrawser

Areas of Practice

Appeals
Corporate & Commercial Litigation
Real Property Litigation
Professional Liability & Regulation
Estates & Trust Litigation
Injunctions & Crisis Management
Construction Litigation
Tort & Negligence Matters
Securities Litigation
Advice & Opinions

“Justin is an exceptional lawyer and communicator”

Chambers Canada 2025

Justin Nasseri is widely recognized as a leading Canadian litigator with a track record of success in complex commercial, estates, and regulatory/public law disputes. Clients appreciate Justin’s judgment, litigation acumen, and extensive experience with injunctions, trials, and appeals. He has appeared as counsel before various tribunals (including the FST, HPARB, and the Discipline Committee of several Ontario health colleges and the HCRA), arbitral panels, all levels of court in Ontario, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Justin is regularly recognized as a leading lawyer by legal industry publications that solicit feedback from clients and peers. He is ranked in Benchmark Litigation (Litigation Star), Best Lawyers (Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Appellate Practice, Trusts and Estates, Administrative and Public Law), and Chambers and Partners (General Commercial Litigation). Lexpert ranks Justin as a leading lawyer in Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Professional Liability, Regulatory and Public Law, and Director and Officer Liability.  He is also ranked in the Lexpert 500 Cross-Border Guide, which lists the leading practitioners in cross-border litigation. Justin has also been the recipient of (i) the inaugural 2025 Ontario Bar Association Civil Litigation Emerging Leader Award, recognizing a lawyer with exceptional skills in oral/written advocacy, integrity, civility, professionalism, and mentorship; (ii) the Lexpert Rising Star – Leading Lawyer Under 40 award, and (iii) the Emerging Talent Litigator of the Year for Canada from Benchmark Litigation in 2022. 

According to Chambers’ research, clients described Justin as  “practical, smart”, and “strong, decisive, and knowing how to win”. One client said Justin is  “relentless in the courtroom…Outside of the courtroom, he is very thoughtful and evaluates strategic options for his clients”. Similarly, anonymous peer reviews collected by Benchmark Litigation remarked that Justin is “an exceptional advocate”, a “one in a million type of lawyer,” someone for whom “any client would be lucky to have in their corner”, “a natural advocate with an instinct for identifying and preparing winning arguments, and deep experience in appellate advocacy….”. According to one peer: “In my 14 years of Bay Street practice, his was one of the best advocacy performances I have seen.”

Justin has over 60 reported decisions. His trial advocacy highlights include (i) successfully defending a developer in a $32M regulatory prosecution trial; (ii) co-leading the successful challenge to the will of a tobacco magnate with a multi-million dollar estate; (iii) winning a commercial arbitration on behalf of a company, including an award of punitive damages and full indemnity for legal costs; and (iv) successfully defending a sexual abuse discipline hearing prosecuted under the Regulated Health Professions Act. His appellate wins include resisting two appeals under the Arthur Wishart Act, resisting an appeal from a non-party production order made against a tobacco manufacturer, resisting the appeal of a jury verdict in a significant medical malpractice case, and overturning an unprecedented $9M judgment as a sanction for contempt at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 

Justin also has significant wins in motions and application court, including (i) securing an interlocutory injunction against a partner in a development project who unlawfully acquired the senior loan on the project to influence the litigation, (ii) resisting an urgent Norwich motion for which he secured substantial indemnity costs in favour of his client, and (iii) successfully representing PEN Canada in a constitutional challenge to an overly broad ‘false statements’ prohibition in Canada’s federal election legislation.

Justin is also widely published on litigation topics including contract law, civil and criminal procedure, and injunctive relief. His publication history includes works in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation, the Alberta Law Review, the Canadian Privacy Law Review, and the Advocates’ Journal. Justin is frequently asked to speak at and write for legal education conferences hosted by the Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario Bar Association, and the Advocates’ Society. Justin is also a past Chair of the Executive Committee of the Ontario Bar Association’s Civil Litigation section, where he organized legal education programs and was involved in advocating for policy reforms that included increased adoption of technology and removing the need for pregnant counsel to wear robes in court.

Before co-founding Ross Nasseri LLP, Justin practiced at the leading litigation firms McCarthy Tétrault and Pape Barristers (now Pape Chaudhury LLP). He graduated with a JD from the University of Toronto, and a B.A. in Economics and Political Science with First Class Honours from the University of Alberta.

Representative Matters

  • Representing a publicly traded company in litigation involving claims against former directors/executives for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
  • Acting for business-owners in a multi-generational family dispute involving companies in the property management and manufacturing industries
  • Representing the ETDL in a multi-million dollar proceeding on the Toronto Estates List
  • Prosecuting a claim for professional negligence on behalf of a publicly traded company against a multinational law firm
  • Assisting a company in the cannabis retail space with an investigation
  • Representing the plaintiff in a multi-million-dollar contract and oppression dispute for nonpayment of fees arising from a software/coding services agreement
  • Counsel to various individuals and corporations in multiple Ontario Securities Commission investigations as well as to whistleblowers
  • Counsel to various healthcare providers in administrative proceedings under the Regulated Health Professions Act

 

Decisions

  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2025 ONSC 5376: Successfully challenged the will of a tobacco magnate in a will challenge trial on the Toronto Estates List on the basis of suspicious circumstances and insufficient evidence of knowledge and approval by the testator.
  • Home Construction Regulatory Authority v. Briarwood (Angus) Ltd. et al.: Obtained successful outcome in a significant discipline trial pursuant to a regulatory prosecution under the Code of Ethics to the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017. The Respondents faced 142 allegations of misconduct and $33M in financial jeopardy. The trial ended with none of the allegations being proven and no findings against our clients. We received the following victorious decisions during the trial:
    • Successful motion for further and better disclosure early in the trial (2025 CarswellOnt 15021)
    • Successful motion to disqualify the HCRA’s expert witness for lack of requisite qualifications to provide opinion evidence (2025 CarswellOnt 22056)
    • Successful motion for leave to bring a nonsuit motion without having to make an election as to calling a defence (2025 CarswellOnt 22057)
    • Successful motion to have 128/142 dismissed on a non-suit motion (2025 CarswellOnt 22058). The remaining 14 counts were withdrawn at the HCRA’s request
  • The Morgan Investments Group v. ADI Development Group Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 5346 (Div. Ct.): Successfully moved to quash an appeal from the injunctive order in 2025 ONSC 4344 on the basis that leave to appeal was required and the appeal was moot. The Divisional Court clarified that leave to appeal is required for any interlocutory decision under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, despite the language in s. 255 stating an appeal lies to the Divisional Court
  • The Morgan Investments Group Inc. v. Adi Development Group Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 4903: Acted for the successful party in an oppression case concerning control over a development project in Burlington, Ontario. Our client was granted a s. 207 buyout order under the Ontario Business Corporations Act against a business partner who was found to have committed oppression by, inter alia, unlawfully acquiring the senior loan on the Project
  • The Morgan Investments Group v. ADI Development Group Inc. et al, 2025 ONSC 4344: Obtained an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a director/shareholder from taking advantage of the breach of a shareholders' agreement to surreptitiously acquire the senior loan on a development project
  • Aon Inc. v. City of Peterborough, 2025 ONSC 4240: Successfully resisted summary judgment motion of a municipality in a breach of contract action involving allegations of bad faith against the city. RN LLP persuaded the Court to rule that the applicable limitation period was the Real Property Limitations Act
  • Private Arbitration, December 2024: Successful counsel for a company in an oppression arbitration Advanced and won claims on behalf of the company for breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, an order that a director/shareholder who committed misconduct against the company be bought out and removed as a director. Successfully secured an award of full indemnity costs
  • Royal Bank of Canada v. Everest Group Inc., 2024 ONCA 577: successfully resisted two appeals on behalf of a franchisor who defeated rescission actions at trial
  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2024 ONCA 464: successfully defended third-party production motion from 2023 ONSC 7161
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Kazembe, 2024 ONLSTH 10: successfully defended a lawyer at the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division on several allegations of harassment and discriminatory conduct
  • Espartel Investments Limited v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation NO. 993, 2024 ONCA 18: counsel on an appeal concerning the discoverability doctrine and what constitutes reasonable diligence when assessing the limitation period applicable to a contract claim arising from a utility sharing agreement between a condominium corporation and a hotel
  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2023 ONSC 7161: Counsel on two successful motions, one to compel third-party productions from a major tobacco company, and one to obtain leave to examine two non-parties for discovery
  • Ontario (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario) v. Registrant R: Successfully defended a massage therapist against sexual abuse allegations at trial
  • Nobul Technologies Inc. v. Reed, 2023 ONSC 7514: Counsel for defendants to counterclaim who supported a successful motion to have an international law firm removed as counsel of record for a conflict of interest
  • Jacobs et al. v. McGee, 2023 ONSC 2765, 2023 ONSC 3427, 2023 ONSC 4394 (Div Ct): Successfully resisted an urgent Norwich order, obtained a costs order in favour of client on a substantial indemnity basis, and defeated the leave to appeal application from the motion decision at Divisional Court
  • Information and Privacy Commissioner Order PO-4398 re: Appeals PA 20-00171 and PA20-00787 Financial Services Regulatory Authority, 2023 CanLII 49384 (ON IPC): Successfully appealed decisions of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario to deny access to a Notice of Proposal from the Fortress syndicated mortgage prosecutions
  • Kawa v. 1Plus12 Corporation et al., 2022 ONSC 6527: Counsel in successfully resisting the majority of relief sought in multiple motions to strike a claim concerning a real estate fraud scheme
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Ali, 2022 ONLSTH 101: Counsel to a member in a discipline hearing; negotiated a brief suspension for member in a decision in which the member’s “remarkable efforts” at restitution were lauded by the Law Society Tribunal
  • Rubner et al. v. Bistricer et al., 2022 ONSC 4489: Counsel to an ETDL obtaining a motion under Rule 45 for the return of jewelry at issue in a will challenge
  • Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324, 2021 ONCA 722: Retained as appellate counsel; successful in overturning a decision from the Commercial List to grant final judgment of $9M as sanction for contempt of court
  • Mansteel v. Katebian et al., 2021 ONSC 5273: Successfully obtained security for costs on a pay-as-you-go basis against a corporate plaintiff in a multi-million dollar action alleging fraud and conspiracy
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 1224: Successfully acted for intervener in a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Canada Elections Act on the basis of unfair infringements on free speech rights
  • Stubbs v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2021 CanLII 37 (HPARB): Acted for applicant in a review concerning registration guidelines at the College of Psychologists of Ontario
  • Marsh v. Electronica AI Inc., [2019] O.J. No. 6281 and [2019] O.J. No. 6282: Successfully obtained one of the first-known preservation orders for cryptocurrency under Rules 44/45
  • R. v. T.G., 2019 ONCJ 665: Counsel in a complex, multi-week criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault by a teacher
  • Howell-Wignall v. Casey’s Propane Inc.: Successfully obtained security for costs and a litigation timetable for a defendant/plaintiff-by-counterclaim, and had the plaintiff’s motion for a stay of civil proceeding pending a criminal proceeding dismissed
  • Rubner v. Bistricer, 2018 ONSC 1934: Counsel for Litigation Guardian in a complex dispute concerning constitution of a bare trust, validity of various gifts and a will, and ownership of interest in a real estate joint venture. The Court accepted most of the Litigation Guardian’s positions and ordered accordingly
  • St. James No. 1 Inc. v. VanderWindt, 2018 ONCA 44: Appeal involving the validity of service on a corporation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act
  • Sandhu v. Sikh Lehar International Organization, 2017 ONSC 5680 and 2017 ONSC 7165: Successfully tried an action on behalf of the plaintiffs to recover almost $2M arising from a failed transaction for the purchase and sale of a large property in Brampton
  • Berg v. Canadian Hockey League, 2017 ONSC 5382: Appearing as counsel for the Law Foundation of Ontario on a costs hearing arising from a certification motion
  • Chaudhry v. A&B Auto Leasing and Car Rental Inc. et al.: Successfully brought a motion for summary judgment to have an action dismissed as against A&B on the basis that the plaintiff had no valid contract with the corporate entity
  • Surujedo v. Melady, 2017 ONCA 41: Successfully resisted the appeal of two defendant physicians who were found liable for negligence at a jury trial
  • Best v. Ranking, 2016 ONCA 492: Counsel on an appeal regarding the threshold of conduct for a personal costs award against a lawyer
  • Tam v. Cheng: Successfully moved to enforce a settlement and obtained costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away
  • Private Arbitration: Successfully represented a leading IT company that was awarded $27M in an arbitration for breach of contract
  • König v. Hobza, 2014 ONCA 691: Successfully reduced damages award in the appeal of an oppression case

Awards

 

Industry Rankings

  • Best Lawyers in Canada:
    • Corporate and Commercial Litigation (2022-2026)
    • Administrative & Public Law (2024-2026)
    • Appellate Practice (2024-2026)
    • Trust and Estates (2024-2026)
    • Professional Malpractice Law (2026)
  • Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyer (2023-2026)
  • Top Lawyers (Litigation), Post City Magazines  (2021-2026)
  • "Rule 15 – Representation by Lawyer in Noel Semple (Ed.), Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, 2nd ed." Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2022 (co-authored with Gordon Vance)
  • “Pulling the Chute: Motions to Get Off the Record Pursuant to Rule 15.04", Law Society of Upper Canada: A Litigator’s Guide to the Challenging Lawyer-Client Relationship (with Shantona Chaudhry)
  • “More Deference, More Problems: The Standard of Appellate Review”, Ontario Bar Association – Your First Civil Appeal, October 17, 2016 (with Shantona Chaudhry)
  • “Economic Duress after Bhasin v. Hyrnew: Does the Organizing Principle of Good Faith Offer a New Framework?” in Todd L. Archibald and Randall Scott Echlin, eds., Annual Review of Civil Litigation, 2016 (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2016) (with Brandon Kain)
  • “When Worlds Collide: A Look At Key Issues When Simultaneously Litigating Civil and Criminal Proceedings”, For the Defence (Vol. 37, No. 1)
  • “Summary Judgment Motions: Where Are We Now? (An Appellate Perspective)” The Advocates’ Society Summary Judgment Motions conference, May 27, 2016 (with Tanya A. Pagliaroli)
  • “Honour Among Businesspeople: the Duty of Good Faith and Contracts in the Energy Sector”, 2015, 53 Alta. L. Rev. 349 (with Neil Finkelstein, Brandon Kain, and Craig Spurn) (Reproduced with permission of Alberta Law Review)
  • “The Art of Juggling: Defending Concurrent Criminal, Civil, and Professional Discipline Proceedings” 2014, 43 Adv. Q. (with Christopher A. Wayland)
  • “The Digital and Internet Age Meets the Law of Search and Seizure” as the S.C.C. Clarifies the Law on Search Warrants and Computers in R. v. Vu, 2014, Canadian Privacy Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 3
  • “What are the Implications of the Digital Age Meeting the Law of Search and Seizure? A Comment on R. v. Vu”, Ontario Bar Association’s Institute 2014 – Criminal Justice – Litigating a Smarter Charter, February 8, 2014

Biography

“Justin is an exceptional lawyer and communicator”

Chambers Canada 2025

Justin Nasseri is widely recognized as a leading Canadian litigator with a track record of success in complex commercial, estates, and regulatory/public law disputes. Clients appreciate Justin’s judgment, litigation acumen, and extensive experience with injunctions, trials, and appeals. He has appeared as counsel before various tribunals (including the FST, HPARB, and the Discipline Committee of several Ontario health colleges and the HCRA), arbitral panels, all levels of court in Ontario, and the Supreme Court of Canada. Justin is regularly recognized as a leading lawyer by legal industry publications that solicit feedback from clients and peers. He is ranked in Benchmark Litigation (Litigation Star), Best Lawyers (Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Appellate Practice, Trusts and Estates, Administrative and Public Law), and Chambers and Partners (General Commercial Litigation). Lexpert ranks Justin as a leading lawyer in Corporate and Commercial Litigation, Professional Liability, Regulatory and Public Law, and Director and Officer Liability.  He is also ranked in the Lexpert 500 Cross-Border Guide, which lists the leading practitioners in cross-border litigation. Justin has also been the recipient of (i) the inaugural 2025 Ontario Bar Association Civil Litigation Emerging Leader Award, recognizing a lawyer with exceptional skills in oral/written advocacy, integrity, civility, professionalism, and mentorship; (ii) the Lexpert Rising Star – Leading Lawyer Under 40 award, and (iii) the Emerging Talent Litigator of the Year for Canada from Benchmark Litigation in 2022. 

According to Chambers’ research, clients described Justin as  “practical, smart”, and “strong, decisive, and knowing how to win”. One client said Justin is  “relentless in the courtroom…Outside of the courtroom, he is very thoughtful and evaluates strategic options for his clients”. Similarly, anonymous peer reviews collected by Benchmark Litigation remarked that Justin is “an exceptional advocate”, a “one in a million type of lawyer,” someone for whom “any client would be lucky to have in their corner”, “a natural advocate with an instinct for identifying and preparing winning arguments, and deep experience in appellate advocacy….”. According to one peer: “In my 14 years of Bay Street practice, his was one of the best advocacy performances I have seen.”

Justin has over 60 reported decisions. His trial advocacy highlights include (i) successfully defending a developer in a $32M regulatory prosecution trial; (ii) co-leading the successful challenge to the will of a tobacco magnate with a multi-million dollar estate; (iii) winning a commercial arbitration on behalf of a company, including an award of punitive damages and full indemnity for legal costs; and (iv) successfully defending a sexual abuse discipline hearing prosecuted under the Regulated Health Professions Act. His appellate wins include resisting two appeals under the Arthur Wishart Act, resisting an appeal from a non-party production order made against a tobacco manufacturer, resisting the appeal of a jury verdict in a significant medical malpractice case, and overturning an unprecedented $9M judgment as a sanction for contempt at the Court of Appeal for Ontario. 

Justin also has significant wins in motions and application court, including (i) securing an interlocutory injunction against a partner in a development project who unlawfully acquired the senior loan on the project to influence the litigation, (ii) resisting an urgent Norwich motion for which he secured substantial indemnity costs in favour of his client, and (iii) successfully representing PEN Canada in a constitutional challenge to an overly broad ‘false statements’ prohibition in Canada’s federal election legislation.

Justin is also widely published on litigation topics including contract law, civil and criminal procedure, and injunctive relief. His publication history includes works in the Annual Review of Civil Litigation, the Alberta Law Review, the Canadian Privacy Law Review, and the Advocates’ Journal. Justin is frequently asked to speak at and write for legal education conferences hosted by the Law Society of Ontario, the Ontario Bar Association, and the Advocates’ Society. Justin is also a past Chair of the Executive Committee of the Ontario Bar Association’s Civil Litigation section, where he organized legal education programs and was involved in advocating for policy reforms that included increased adoption of technology and removing the need for pregnant counsel to wear robes in court.

Before co-founding Ross Nasseri LLP, Justin practiced at the leading litigation firms McCarthy Tétrault and Pape Barristers (now Pape Chaudhury LLP). He graduated with a JD from the University of Toronto, and a B.A. in Economics and Political Science with First Class Honours from the University of Alberta.

Representative Matters & Decisions

Representative Matters

  • Representing a publicly traded company in litigation involving claims against former directors/executives for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence
  • Acting for business-owners in a multi-generational family dispute involving companies in the property management and manufacturing industries
  • Representing the ETDL in a multi-million dollar proceeding on the Toronto Estates List
  • Prosecuting a claim for professional negligence on behalf of a publicly traded company against a multinational law firm
  • Assisting a company in the cannabis retail space with an investigation
  • Representing the plaintiff in a multi-million-dollar contract and oppression dispute for nonpayment of fees arising from a software/coding services agreement
  • Counsel to various individuals and corporations in multiple Ontario Securities Commission investigations as well as to whistleblowers
  • Counsel to various healthcare providers in administrative proceedings under the Regulated Health Professions Act

 

Decisions

  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2025 ONSC 5376: Successfully challenged the will of a tobacco magnate in a will challenge trial on the Toronto Estates List on the basis of suspicious circumstances and insufficient evidence of knowledge and approval by the testator.
  • Home Construction Regulatory Authority v. Briarwood (Angus) Ltd. et al.: Obtained successful outcome in a significant discipline trial pursuant to a regulatory prosecution under the Code of Ethics to the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017. The Respondents faced 142 allegations of misconduct and $33M in financial jeopardy. The trial ended with none of the allegations being proven and no findings against our clients. We received the following victorious decisions during the trial:
    • Successful motion for further and better disclosure early in the trial (2025 CarswellOnt 15021)
    • Successful motion to disqualify the HCRA’s expert witness for lack of requisite qualifications to provide opinion evidence (2025 CarswellOnt 22056)
    • Successful motion for leave to bring a nonsuit motion without having to make an election as to calling a defence (2025 CarswellOnt 22057)
    • Successful motion to have 128/142 dismissed on a non-suit motion (2025 CarswellOnt 22058). The remaining 14 counts were withdrawn at the HCRA’s request
  • The Morgan Investments Group v. ADI Development Group Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 5346 (Div. Ct.): Successfully moved to quash an appeal from the injunctive order in 2025 ONSC 4344 on the basis that leave to appeal was required and the appeal was moot. The Divisional Court clarified that leave to appeal is required for any interlocutory decision under the Ontario Business Corporations Act, despite the language in s. 255 stating an appeal lies to the Divisional Court
  • The Morgan Investments Group Inc. v. Adi Development Group Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 4903: Acted for the successful party in an oppression case concerning control over a development project in Burlington, Ontario. Our client was granted a s. 207 buyout order under the Ontario Business Corporations Act against a business partner who was found to have committed oppression by, inter alia, unlawfully acquiring the senior loan on the Project
  • The Morgan Investments Group v. ADI Development Group Inc. et al, 2025 ONSC 4344: Obtained an urgent interlocutory injunction to restrain a director/shareholder from taking advantage of the breach of a shareholders' agreement to surreptitiously acquire the senior loan on a development project
  • Aon Inc. v. City of Peterborough, 2025 ONSC 4240: Successfully resisted summary judgment motion of a municipality in a breach of contract action involving allegations of bad faith against the city. RN LLP persuaded the Court to rule that the applicable limitation period was the Real Property Limitations Act
  • Private Arbitration, December 2024: Successful counsel for a company in an oppression arbitration Advanced and won claims on behalf of the company for breach of fiduciary duty, punitive damages, an order that a director/shareholder who committed misconduct against the company be bought out and removed as a director. Successfully secured an award of full indemnity costs
  • Royal Bank of Canada v. Everest Group Inc., 2024 ONCA 577: successfully resisted two appeals on behalf of a franchisor who defeated rescission actions at trial
  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2024 ONCA 464: successfully defended third-party production motion from 2023 ONSC 7161
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Kazembe, 2024 ONLSTH 10: successfully defended a lawyer at the Law Society Tribunal Hearing Division on several allegations of harassment and discriminatory conduct
  • Espartel Investments Limited v. Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation NO. 993, 2024 ONCA 18: counsel on an appeal concerning the discoverability doctrine and what constitutes reasonable diligence when assessing the limitation period applicable to a contract claim arising from a utility sharing agreement between a condominium corporation and a hotel
  • Bayliss v. Burnham, 2023 ONSC 7161: Counsel on two successful motions, one to compel third-party productions from a major tobacco company, and one to obtain leave to examine two non-parties for discovery
  • Ontario (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario) v. Registrant R: Successfully defended a massage therapist against sexual abuse allegations at trial
  • Nobul Technologies Inc. v. Reed, 2023 ONSC 7514: Counsel for defendants to counterclaim who supported a successful motion to have an international law firm removed as counsel of record for a conflict of interest
  • Jacobs et al. v. McGee, 2023 ONSC 2765, 2023 ONSC 3427, 2023 ONSC 4394 (Div Ct): Successfully resisted an urgent Norwich order, obtained a costs order in favour of client on a substantial indemnity basis, and defeated the leave to appeal application from the motion decision at Divisional Court
  • Information and Privacy Commissioner Order PO-4398 re: Appeals PA 20-00171 and PA20-00787 Financial Services Regulatory Authority, 2023 CanLII 49384 (ON IPC): Successfully appealed decisions of the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario to deny access to a Notice of Proposal from the Fortress syndicated mortgage prosecutions
  • Kawa v. 1Plus12 Corporation et al., 2022 ONSC 6527: Counsel in successfully resisting the majority of relief sought in multiple motions to strike a claim concerning a real estate fraud scheme
  • Law Society of Ontario v. Ali, 2022 ONLSTH 101: Counsel to a member in a discipline hearing; negotiated a brief suspension for member in a decision in which the member’s “remarkable efforts” at restitution were lauded by the Law Society Tribunal
  • Rubner et al. v. Bistricer et al., 2022 ONSC 4489: Counsel to an ETDL obtaining a motion under Rule 45 for the return of jewelry at issue in a will challenge
  • Thrive Capital Management Ltd. v. Noble 1324, 2021 ONCA 722: Retained as appellate counsel; successful in overturning a decision from the Commercial List to grant final judgment of $9M as sanction for contempt of court
  • Mansteel v. Katebian et al., 2021 ONSC 5273: Successfully obtained security for costs on a pay-as-you-go basis against a corporate plaintiff in a multi-million dollar action alleging fraud and conspiracy
  • Canadian Constitution Foundation v. Canada (Attorney General), 2021 ONSC 1224: Successfully acted for intervener in a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Canada Elections Act on the basis of unfair infringements on free speech rights
  • Stubbs v. College of Psychologists of Ontario, 2021 CanLII 37 (HPARB): Acted for applicant in a review concerning registration guidelines at the College of Psychologists of Ontario
  • Marsh v. Electronica AI Inc., [2019] O.J. No. 6281 and [2019] O.J. No. 6282: Successfully obtained one of the first-known preservation orders for cryptocurrency under Rules 44/45
  • R. v. T.G., 2019 ONCJ 665: Counsel in a complex, multi-week criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault by a teacher
  • Howell-Wignall v. Casey’s Propane Inc.: Successfully obtained security for costs and a litigation timetable for a defendant/plaintiff-by-counterclaim, and had the plaintiff’s motion for a stay of civil proceeding pending a criminal proceeding dismissed
  • Rubner v. Bistricer, 2018 ONSC 1934: Counsel for Litigation Guardian in a complex dispute concerning constitution of a bare trust, validity of various gifts and a will, and ownership of interest in a real estate joint venture. The Court accepted most of the Litigation Guardian’s positions and ordered accordingly
  • St. James No. 1 Inc. v. VanderWindt, 2018 ONCA 44: Appeal involving the validity of service on a corporation pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act
  • Sandhu v. Sikh Lehar International Organization, 2017 ONSC 5680 and 2017 ONSC 7165: Successfully tried an action on behalf of the plaintiffs to recover almost $2M arising from a failed transaction for the purchase and sale of a large property in Brampton
  • Berg v. Canadian Hockey League, 2017 ONSC 5382: Appearing as counsel for the Law Foundation of Ontario on a costs hearing arising from a certification motion
  • Chaudhry v. A&B Auto Leasing and Car Rental Inc. et al.: Successfully brought a motion for summary judgment to have an action dismissed as against A&B on the basis that the plaintiff had no valid contract with the corporate entity
  • Surujedo v. Melady, 2017 ONCA 41: Successfully resisted the appeal of two defendant physicians who were found liable for negligence at a jury trial
  • Best v. Ranking, 2016 ONCA 492: Counsel on an appeal regarding the threshold of conduct for a personal costs award against a lawyer
  • Tam v. Cheng: Successfully moved to enforce a settlement and obtained costs on a substantial indemnity basis for costs thrown away
  • Private Arbitration: Successfully represented a leading IT company that was awarded $27M in an arbitration for breach of contract
  • König v. Hobza, 2014 ONCA 691: Successfully reduced damages award in the appeal of an oppression case

Awards & Rankings

Awards

 

Industry Rankings

  • Best Lawyers in Canada:
    • Corporate and Commercial Litigation (2022-2026)
    • Administrative & Public Law (2024-2026)
    • Appellate Practice (2024-2026)
    • Trust and Estates (2024-2026)
    • Professional Malpractice Law (2026)
  • Thomson Reuters Stand-out Lawyer (2023-2026)
  • Top Lawyers (Litigation), Post City Magazines  (2021-2026)

Publications

  • "Rule 15 – Representation by Lawyer in Noel Semple (Ed.), Civil Procedure and Practice in Ontario, 2nd ed." Canadian Legal Information Institute, 2022 (co-authored with Gordon Vance)
  • “Pulling the Chute: Motions to Get Off the Record Pursuant to Rule 15.04", Law Society of Upper Canada: A Litigator’s Guide to the Challenging Lawyer-Client Relationship (with Shantona Chaudhry)
  • “More Deference, More Problems: The Standard of Appellate Review”, Ontario Bar Association – Your First Civil Appeal, October 17, 2016 (with Shantona Chaudhry)
  • “Economic Duress after Bhasin v. Hyrnew: Does the Organizing Principle of Good Faith Offer a New Framework?” in Todd L. Archibald and Randall Scott Echlin, eds., Annual Review of Civil Litigation, 2016 (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2016) (with Brandon Kain)
  • “When Worlds Collide: A Look At Key Issues When Simultaneously Litigating Civil and Criminal Proceedings”, For the Defence (Vol. 37, No. 1)
  • “Summary Judgment Motions: Where Are We Now? (An Appellate Perspective)” The Advocates’ Society Summary Judgment Motions conference, May 27, 2016 (with Tanya A. Pagliaroli)
  • “Honour Among Businesspeople: the Duty of Good Faith and Contracts in the Energy Sector”, 2015, 53 Alta. L. Rev. 349 (with Neil Finkelstein, Brandon Kain, and Craig Spurn) (Reproduced with permission of Alberta Law Review)
  • “The Art of Juggling: Defending Concurrent Criminal, Civil, and Professional Discipline Proceedings” 2014, 43 Adv. Q. (with Christopher A. Wayland)
  • “The Digital and Internet Age Meets the Law of Search and Seizure” as the S.C.C. Clarifies the Law on Search Warrants and Computers in R. v. Vu, 2014, Canadian Privacy Law Review, Vol. 11, No. 3
  • “What are the Implications of the Digital Age Meeting the Law of Search and Seizure? A Comment on R. v. Vu”, Ontario Bar Association’s Institute 2014 – Criminal Justice – Litigating a Smarter Charter, February 8, 2014

Presentations & Speaking Engagements

In the Media

News, accolades & recognition

Ross Nasseri is delighted to welcome its Summer 2026 class

May 12, 2026

Ross Nasseri is delighted to welcome its Summer 2026 class to the firm: Tuviere Okome, Winston Bai, Harleen Grewal. Tuviere is a candidate for the Bachelor of Civil Law and Juris Doctor at McGill University’s Faculty of Law. Harleen is a second year Juris Doctor...

Read More