Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Canada (Attorney General)
Sakab Saudi Holding Company, Alpha Star Aviation Services Company, Enma Al Ared Real Estate Investment and Development Company, Kafa'at Business Solutions Company, Security Control Company, Armour Security Industrial Manufacturing Company
Law Firm / Organization
AGP LLP
Lawyer(s)

Howard Krongold

Saudi Technology & Security Comprehensive Control Company, Technology Control Company, New Dawn Contracting Company, Sky Prime Investment Company
Law Firm / Organization
AGP LLP
Lawyer(s)

Howard Krongold

Saad Khalid S Al Jabri
Law Firm / Organization
Adair Goldblatt Bieber LLP
Law Firm / Organization
Kapoor Barristers
Lawyer(s)

Anil K. Kapoor

Attorney General of Canada
Law Firm / Organization
Department of Justice Canada
Lawyer(s)

André Seguin

- Parties: The appellants were Sakab Saudi Holding Company, Alpha Star Aviation Services Company, Enma Al Ared Real Estate Investment and Development Company, Kafa’at Business Solutions Company, Security Control Company, Armour Security Industrial Manufacturing Company, Saudi Technology & Security Comprehensive Control Company, Technology Control Company, New Dawn Contracting Company, and Sky Prime Investment Company. The respondents were Attorney General of Canada and Saad Khalid S Al Jabri.

- Subject Matter: The underlying proceeding, commenced before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice by the appellants and other parties in January 2021, sought damages of over $5 billion from the respondent and other parties. The Attorney General of Canada brought an application seeking to protect sensitive or potentially injurious information from disclosure in the proceeding under s. 38.04 of the Canada Evidence Act, 1985. These consolidated appeals (A-17-23 and A-280-23) concerned two interlocutory decisions that the Federal Court’s designated judge issued in the context of the s. 38 proceeding.

- Ruling: The appeal court ruled in the respondents’ favour and dismissed the appeal without costs since the respondents sought none. The appeal court held that the designated judge did not err in concluding that the proffer – described as an unsworn “solicitor’s brief” or lawyer’s “memo to file” – could be the subject of a s. 38 application.

- Date: The hearing was set on Feb. 6, 2024. The court released its decision on May 9, 2024.

- Venue: This was a federal case before the Federal Court of Appeal.

- Amount: No financial award was specified.

Federal Court of Appeal
A-280-23
Corporate & commercial law
$ 0
Respondent
16 October 2023