Anu Koshal is a member of our Litigation Group in Toronto. He represents clients in complex, high-stakes disputes across a variety of industries and practice areas.
Anu has an active trial and appellate practice. He has tried cases before judges, juries, and arbitrators. He has appeared before all levels of court in Ontario, including in the Court of Appeal for Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada. And he has represented clients in provinces across the country, as well as in cross-border matters involving foreign jurisdictions.
In 2018, Lexpert named Anu a “Leading Lawyer to Watch” in the area of corporate and commercial litigation. According to Chambers Canada: Canada’s Leading Lawyers for Business, clients describe Anu as “a superstar in evolution” with “extraordinarily high potential.” He is regarded as having a “very strong analytical and strategic legal mind” as well as being “personable and dedicated.”
Corporate Law/Shareholder Disputes
Anu represents individuals and corporations in allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty, oppression, and derivative actions. He was counsel in Estate of John Wood v. Arius 3D et al, a leading Ontario case on the personal liability of directors and officers under the oppression remedy (cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wilson v. Alharayeri, 2017 SCC 39). Anu recently served as counsel to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce at the Supreme Court of Canada in Christine DeJong Medicine Corporation v. DBDC Spadina Inc,, 2019 SCC 30, a leading case on when corporations can be found civilly liable for the wrongdoing of their directors and officers. In deciding that case, the Supreme Court expressly adopted the clarification of the law proposed by the Chamber of Commerce, limiting the scope of when corporations can be found liable for damages.
Anu represents leading financial services companies in high-stakes matters involving complex financial instruments. He was part of the team representing a Schedule I bank in a multi-billion dollar class-action arising from the operation of the Visa and Mastercard credit card networks in Canada. He represented a leading financial institution in ongoing litigation with a hedge fund arising from an alleged trading error. And he recently served as lead counsel for a property developer in the successful defence a claim brought by investors in a syndicated mortgage investment (Orwinski et al v. Hi-Rise Capital, 2019 ONSC 3975).
A member of our firm’s National Retail and Consumer Markets Group, Anu has defended leading multi-national companies against allegations of failure to warn, defective product, and misleading advertising. This includes the largest piece of litigation in Canadian history: claims by Provincial governments against tobacco companies seeking to recover hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs allegedly incurred as a result of smoking.
In addition to his product liability practice, Anu represents clients facing time-sensitive disruptions to their supply chain, as well as in disputes over the supply and distribution of goods.
Anu has an active appellate practice. He has acted for clients in precedent-setting cases in various areas of law including professional liability, shareholder disputes, financial services, and the law of mortgages. He recently acted as counsel for a national anti-poverty organization in Canada Without Poverty v. Attorney General of Canada, 2018 ONSC 4147, a decision which struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Income Tax Act which prohibited charities from engaging in non-partisan political speech. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation described this case as a “landmark”, and a “David versus Goliath” win for the client.
Anu regularly acts for the Canadian Medical Protective Association in the defence of physicians accused of medical malpractice. He also represents clients in solicitors’ negligence actions. He was counsel for the successful appellant in Oravital Inc. v. Aird & Berlis LLP, 2018 ONCA 164, a leading case on the scope of a lawyer’s duty to advise commercially sophisticated clients. He was also counsel for a Canadian manufacturing company in Alliance v. Gardiner Roberts, 2020 ONSC 68, in which the court found that the defendant lawyers breached their fiduciary duty to its client by acting in a conflict of interest.
Teaching and Pro Bono Work
Anu is active in teaching and writing in the profession. He taught trial advocacy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law for several years and has published on topics including contract law, civil procedure, and class actions. In 2012 he received the Harvey T. Strosberg Prize in Class Actions for his writing in this field. He also regularly contributes to pro bono matters, including representing at-risk children from overseas apply for refugee status before the Immigration and Refugee Board.
Anu received his law degree with Honours from the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, a Ph.D. in literature and philosophy from Duke University, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. He is a member of the Advocates’ Society, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the South Asian Bar Association.
- A leading consumer products company in claims by Provincial governments seeking billions of dollars in damages for failure to warn and defective product;
- A leading utility company in a contractual dispute with a renewable energy company;
- A discount real estate brokerage in a multi-million dollar price-fixing claim against the Toronto Real Estate Board and the Canadian Real Estate Association;
- A Schedule 1 bank in its defence of a $5 billion class action brought by merchants relating to the operation of the Visa and MasterCard networks in Canada;
- A leading consumer products company in a $50 million class action brought by Ontario farmers;
- Numerous physicians in defence of medical malpractice claims;
- A public company in a dispute over a supply and distribution agreement;
- A private company in a solicitor’s negligence claim against a law firm.
- A private company in a contractual dispute against a Fortune 500 company.
- An auto-parts manufacturer in a property dispute over its manufacturing plant.
- A leading software company in a multi-million against a Crown Corporation;
- A leading mining services company in an oppression claim arising from a joint venture agreement;
- A former CEO in an oppression claim against directors and officers of a publicly traded company;
- A public agency in a multi-million dollar dispute against a leading engineering and construction firm;
- A start-up company in a claim for breach of contract, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the theft of confidential information.
- “The Corporate Identification Doctrine Clarified Through an Intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada,” Canadian Appeal Monitor, May 22, 2019
- “Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Scope of Lawyer’s Duty to Advise on Damages,” Canadian Appeals Monitor, March 6, 2018.
- “Pick Your Poison: The Ontario Court of Appeal Clarifies the Distinction Between the Oppression Remedy and the Derivative Action,” Canadian Appeals Monitor, June 9, 2015.
- “The Duty of Honest Performance: New Ammunition for Plaintiffs Alleging Breach of Contract,” Canadian Corporate Counsel Association Magazine, Volume 9, No. 2 (Summer 2015).
- “Honesty is the Best Policy: Good Faith in Canadian Contract Law,” co-authored with Brandon Kain and Justin Nasseri, Financiers’ Worldwide, April 2015.
- “A New Paradigm for Summary Judgment: The Supreme Court of Canada’s Decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin,” co-authored with Neil Finkelstein, Awi Sinha, and Eric Block, The Advocates’ Quarterly, Volume 42, no. 4 (April 2014).
- “Third Party Funding for Class Actions: Problems and Solutions,” Canadian Class Action Review, Volume 8, Issue 2 (May 2013).