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, with a focus on financial services litigation and product liability matters.
Anu has an active trial and appellate practice. He has tried cases before judges, juries, and arbitrators. He has appeared as lead counsel before all levels of court in Ontario and represented clients before the Supreme Court of Canada. He appears frequently on the Commercial List, a specialized court in Toronto that deals with complex commercial disputes.
In 2018, Lexpert named Anu a “Leading Lawyer to Watch” in the area of corporate and commercial litigation.
Financial Services Litigation
Anu represents leading financial services companies including banks, hedge funds, investment companies, and private equity firms in high-stakes matters before the courts, the Ontario Securities Commission, and the Financial Services Tribunal of Ontario. Many of these cases involve complex financial instruments.
Among his recent cases, Anu was co-counsel for EdgePoint Investment Management Group before the Ontario Securities Commission in Re. ESW Capital, LLC, the first case challenging the minimum tender requirement governing hostile take-over bids under Canadian securities laws. He successfully obtained a dismissal of all claims against his client in Orwinski et al v. Hi-Rise Capital, 2019 ONSC 3975, a case brought by investors in a syndicated mortgage. He recently acted for a Schedule 1 bank in litigation against a hedge fund arising from alleged trading losses. He previously represented a Schedule 1 bank in a $5 billion class action arising from the operation of the Visa and Mastercard credit card networks.
Anu also represents individuals, corporations, and family offices in complex corporate and commercial disputes, including shareholder disputes involving allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty and oppression. He was counsel in Estate of John Wood v. Arius 3D et al, a leading 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). He was co-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.
A member of our firm’s National Retail and Consumer Markets Group, Anu regularly defends leading multi-national companies against allegations of failure to warn, defective product, and misleading advertising. He also represents leading consumer products companies in class actions alleging breaches of the Consumer Protection Act. Anu was part of the team defending 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.
Anu has an active appellate practice. He has appeared in numerous cases before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and 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 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 was also 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.
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 pharmaceutical company in a national class action involving alleged price-fixing in the market for generic drugs;
- A leading technology company in a class action alleging defective product;
- A start-up company in a dispute with a leading, publicly traded technology company seeking $600,000,000 in damages for alleged theft of confidential information;
- A start-up company in a multi-million dollar price-fixing claim against the Toronto Real Estate Board and the Canadian Real Estate Association;
- A family office in a shareholder dispute over $700 million in assets;
- 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.
- “Can Amazon be Strictly Liable for Defects in the Products Sold Through its Website? A U.S. Appeals Court Says ‘Yes’”. Canadian Appeals Monitor, June 24, 2020.
- “The Corporate Identification Doctrine Clarified Through an Intervention at the Supreme Court of Canada,” Canadian Appeals 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).