Mahmud Jamal’s national litigation practice includes the defence of class actions, banking litigation, constitutional and administrative law, aboriginal litigation, competition/antitrust, pension, tax, copyright and other regulatory litigation. He has argued thirty-one appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada in a wide range of civil, constitutional, criminal, and regulatory areas. He has also argued trials and appeals at all levels of court in Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick, Newfoundland & Labrador, at the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal, and before federal and provincial administrative tribunals such as the Competition Tribunal, the Ontario Energy Board, and the Financial Services Tribunal. He is a former law clerk to the late Mr. Justice Charles D. Gonthier of the Supreme Court of Canada and to Mr. Justice Melvin L. Rothman of the Quebec Court of Appeal. Mahmud is bilingual and has litigated trials and appeals conducted in French.
- Amex Bank of Canada, Bank of Montreal, Bank of Nova Scotia, CIBC, Citibank, Laurentian Bank, National Bank, Royal Bank, and TD Bank before the Quebec Superior Court, Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada challenging the constitutional applicability of the Quebec Consumer Protection Act to bank-issued credit cards: Marcotte v. Bank of Montreal, 2009 QCCS 2764, 2012 QCCA 1396 and Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada, 2009 QCCS 2695, 2012 QCCA 1394; S.C.C. appeals to be argued February 13 and 14, 2014.
- Shoppers Drug Mart before the Ontario Divisional Court, Court of Appeal, and Supreme Court of Canada challenging a regulation banning private label generic drugs:Shoppers Drug Mart Inc. v. Ontario, 2011 ONSC 615 (Div. Ct.); 2011 ONCA 830; 2013 SCC 64.
- Canadian Bankers Association before the Competition Tribunal dismissing allegations that Visa and MasterCard’s system rules constitute price maintenance:Commissioner of Competition v. Visa Canada Corp. and MasterCard International Inc., 2013 Comp. Trib. 10; before the Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec Court of Appeal, and Alberta Court of Appeal in federal and provincial references to determine the constitutionality of the federal Parliament creating a national securities regulator:Reference re Securities Act,  3 S.C.R. 837 (Identified by Lexpert as one of the “Top 10 Business Cases from 2012”); 2011 QCCA 591; 2011 ABCA 77; and before the Supreme Court of Canada in an appeal dealing with the relationship between pensions and insolvency law: Sun Indalex Finance v. United Steelworkers, 2013 SCC 6(Identified by Lexpert as one of the “Top 10 Business Cases from 2013”).
- RBC Life, BMO Life and Industrial Alliance before the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal successfully quashing four ex parte requirements issued under theIncome Tax Act purporting to compel the disclosure of confidential client information:2011 FC 1249; 2013 FCA 50.
- Re:Sound before the Supreme Court on Canada in a copyright appeal: Re:Sound v. Motion Picture Theatre Associations of Canada, 2012 SCC 38 (Identified by Lexpert as one of the “Top 10 Business Cases from 2012”).
- Ontario Energy Board Staff before the Ontario Energy Board in a constitutional challenge to Ontario’s green energy assessments under the Ontario Energy Board Act(EB-2010-0184); and the Ontario Energy Boardin quashing summons to compel Board members to testify in regulatory proceedings: Summit Energy Management Inc. v. Ontario Energy Board, 2012 ONSC 2753 (Div. Ct.).
- Greater Toronto Airports Authority in two appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada to defend federal jurisdiction over aeronautics:Quebec (Attorney General) v. Canadian Owners and Pilots Association,  S.C.R. 536; Quebec(Attorney General) v. Lacombe,  2 S.C.R. 453; in appeals relating to the taxation of airport tenants:Exchange Corporation Canada v. Mississauga et al, 2012 ONSC 6221 (Div. Ct.), appeal to Ont. C.A. argued December 17, 2013; Clear Channel Outdoor Communication Canada v. Municipal Property Assessment Corporation, 2013 ONSC 7014 (Div. Ct.); in a judicial review to secure Pickering Airport lands: GTAA and Attorney General of Canada v. Berrywoods Farms(2006), 208 O.A.C. 82, 19 M.P.L.R. (4th) 293 (Ont. Div. Ct.); resisting an injunction in connection with tender process: Airport Limousine Drivers Association v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority,  O.J. 3510 (S.C.J.), lv. to appeal dismissed; in an appeal on the legality of airport rates and charges: Air Canada v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority(2000), 130 O.A.C. 81 (C.A.)); in a leading case on the constitutional applicability of provincial laws to airports: GTAA v. Mississauga (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), lv. to appeal to S.C.C. dismissed.
- Privacy Commissioner of Canada before the Supreme Court of Canada in appeals affecting the privacy rights of Canadians: Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, 2013 SCC 62(challenge to Alberta’s privacy legislation under s. 2(b) of Charter); and Spencer v. The Queen, S.C.C. 34644 (argued December 9, 2013) (challenge to request for ISP subscriber information under s. 8 of the Charter).
- Dell Canada Inc. before the Supreme Court of Canada in a case dismissing a consumer class action in favour of arbitration: Dell v. Union des consommateurs, 2 S.C.R. 281 (Identified by Lexpert as the most important case affecting business in Canada from 2007 in its feature “Top 10 Business Cases of 2007”); and in a product liability class action: Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc., 2009 CanLII 18222 (S.C.), appeal dismissed 2010 ONCA 29; case settled: 2011 ONSC 3292.
- Nalcor Energy before Newfoundland and Labrador Trial Division successfully resisting an injunction brought by aboriginal group alleging breach of the Crown’s duty to consult in relation to Lower Churchill River hydroelectric project: Nunatukavut Community Council Inc. v. Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro-Electric Corporation (Nalcor Energy), 2011 NLTD 44.
- Imperial TobaccoCanada Ltd. before the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal in challenging a contingency fee agreement concluded by the province’s Attorney General: Imperial Tobacco v. New Brunswick (Attorney General),2010 NBCA 35; 2009 NBQB 198.
- Dollar Financial Group, Inc. in motions, trials and appeals in Ontario and British Columbia involving the relationship between arbitration and class actions. Mackinnon v. National Money Mart, 2009 BCCA 103 and Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co.,2008 ONCA 746.
- Antitrust class actions on behalf of Bank of Montreal (ongoing), General Motors of Canada Limited (dismissed), NEC Corporation, and Lucite International.
- Tax litigation before the Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada:Canada (Minister of National Revenue) v. Welton Parent,  F.C.J. 117 (F.C.)(Actuarial firm challenging requirements under the Income Tax Act);Placer Dome v. Ontario (Ministry of Finance),  1 S.C.R. 715, rev’g (2004), 190 O.A.C. 157 (C.A.)(taxation of hedging and financial derivatives under the Mining Tax Act); Rezek v. Canada,  3 C.T.C. 241 (Fed. C.A.), lv. to S.C.C. dismissed (taxation of convertible hedging under Income Tax Act); and Gifford v. Canada,  1 S.C.R. 411(interest deductibility).
- New Brunswick Forest Products Association in aboriginal rights and treaty litigation before the Supreme Court of Canada: R v. Sappier and Polchies; R. v. Gray, 2 S.C.R. 686; and R. v. Marshall; R. v. Bernard,  2 S.C.R. 220.
- Canadian Bar Association before the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the content of a court’s duty to give reasons: Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Center, 2013 SCC 30; to protect solicitor-client privilege: Ontario v. Criminal Lawyers’ Assn.,  1 S.C.R. 815 (whether government must abrogate privilege to promote freedom of expression); Privacy Commissioner of Canada v. Blood Tribe Department of Health,  2 S.C.R. 574 (whether regulators can abrogate privilege) (Identified byLexpert as one of the “Top 10 Business Cases of 2008”);Celanese Canada Inc. v. Murray Demolition Corp.,  2 S.C.R. 189 (removal of counsel for abrogating privilege).
- Canadian Civil Liberties Association before the Supreme Court of Canada to protect fundamental civil liberties such as the right to privacy, freedom of religion and freedom of expression under the Charter: R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49 (privacy); R. v. MacKenzie, 2013 SCC 50 (privacy); Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. The Queen,  1 S.C.R. 65 (press freedom); Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General),  1 S.C.R. 19 (press freedom); Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony,  2 S.C.R. 567 (freedom of religion); R. v. Bryan,  S.C.R. 527(free expression); and Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite-Bourgeoys,  1 S.C.R. 256 (freedom of religion).