Good afternoon.
Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 10, 2025.
Continue Reading
In Adelaide Metcalfe (Township) v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality), the Court affirmed that absent clear language indicating a right of appeal from an interlocutory decision, legislation conferring a right of appeal from a decision of an administrative tribunal requires that the decision be final.
In Wyatt v. Mirabelli, the Court allowed the appeal from an order dismissing the appellant's claim as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002. The Court found that the motion judge erred in striking the claim under r. 21.01(1)(a) (determination of a question of law) before pleadings had closed, and in failing to consider that the appellant's allegations of multiple instances of water infiltration should be read generously and may not have constituted a single, time-barred event.
In Knisley v Canada (Attorney General), the Court allowed the appeal of Canada, setting aside the certification order granted by the motion judge and remitting the matter for reconsideration and determination of whether the requirements of s. 5(1)(b) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met.
In Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the constitutionality of the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023 (ROPA), which exempted Ontario Place from environmental and heritage laws, limited municipal regulation, and granted the Crown immunity from liability related to the redevelopment of the land. While the Court disagreed with the application judge and found that the Ontario Place Protectors had public interest standing, it agreed with the application judge that ROPA did not violate section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as judicial review remained intact and no public trust doctrine existed under Canadian law to support the appellant's claims.
In Rosemont Management Inc. v. Cityzien Properties Limited, the Court dismissed the appeal from an order staying the appellant's application as an abuse of process due to its failure to immediately disclose a settlement agreement that fundamentally changed the litigation landscape. The Court rejected arguments that the disclosure delay was minimal or excusable, emphasizing the strict requirement for immediate disclosure and affirming that a stay is the automatic remedy for breach of this rule.
In Ly Innovative Group v Facilitate Settlement Corp., the Court dismissed the appeal from the motion judge's decision to terminate a residential tenancy and award the respondent landlords rental arears and punitive damages. The fact that a settlement agreement between the parties was disclosed to the motion judge did not disqualify him from hearing the motion or create a reasonable apprehension of bias. Rule 50.10, which prohibits a pretrial judge from also being the trial judge did not apply in this case, as the motion judge had not presided over a pretrial or any settlement discussions.
In Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, the Court affirmed that Apotex was not entitled to damages for delay which could have flown from s. 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations under the Patent Act. The Court found that the trial judge correctly assessed the hypothetical reality and liabilities associated with bringing the generic drug in question to market before the patent had been declared invalid.
In Bogue v. Miracle, the Court upheld a summary judgment requiring the appellant to pay his former lawyer $2,858,500 under a contingency fee agreement. The Court found that gaining control of a profitable on-reserve business through arbitration constituted a sufficient benefit to trigger the fee obligation, even though no monetary award was recovered. It also upheld the solicitor's lien over the appellant's assets, finding no error in the motion judge's decision.
In Alleghe Mortgage Fund Ltd. v. Winona Park Towns Ltd., the Court dismissed the appeal finding that the respondents did not breach their duty of good faith in the enforcement of a loan agreement and mortgage.
In Rebello v. Ontario (Attorney General), the Court upheld the motion judge's decision to dismiss the appellant's claims against the Crown and various government officials, agreeing that the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and were an abuse of process.
In Kohli v. Thom, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the trial judge erred in imputing income to the appellant without considering the impact of family violence on her ability to work. While the Court upheld the decision denying the appellant's request to relocate with the child to New Brunswick, it found that the imputation of income was unjustified and recalculated the spousal and child support obligations accordingly.
Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Adelaide Metcalfe (Township) v. Strathroy-Caradoc (Municipality), 2025 ONCA 180
Keywords: Administrative Law, Municipal Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Interlocutory Orders, Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, ss. 20(1), 86, 474.10.3(1)(j) and 474.10.16(1)(a), Ontario Land Tribunal Act, 2021, S.O., 2021, c. 4, Sched. 6, s 24(1), Johnson v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 650, J.N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428, George v. Anishinabek Police Service, 2014 ONCA 581, Penney v. The Cooperators General Insurance Company, 2022 ONSC 3874, Roosma v. Ford Motor Co. of Canada Ltd. (1988), 66 O.R. (2d) 18 (Div. Ct.), Volochay v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 54, Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, Eastpine Kennedy-Steeles Ltd. v. Markham (Town) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 147, The Estate of Nikolaus R. Holz v. Ministry of Transportation, 2024 ONSC 2176, Geneen v. Toronto (City) (1998), 107 O.A.C. 308 (Div. Ct.), Maplehurst Bakeries Inc. v. Brampton (City) (1999), 44 O.R. (3d) 667 (Div. Ct.), Skunk v. Ketash, 2016 ONCA 841, Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322 (C.A.), Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), 2024 ONCA 865
Wyatt v. Mirabelli, 2025 ONCA 178
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Striking Pleadings, Determination of Question of Law, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B., Rules of Civil Procedure r. 21.01(1)(a), Beaudoin Estate v. Campbellford Memorial Hospital, 2021 ONCA 57, Kaynes v. BP p.l.c., 2021 ONCA 36, Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC42, Salewski v. Lalonde, 2017 ONCA 515, Clark v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2019 ONCA 311, Toussaint v. Canada (Attorney General), 2023 ONCA 117, Baradaran v. Alexanian, 2016 ONCA 533, Crombie Property Holdings Limited v. McColl-Frontenac Inc. (Texaco Canada Limited), 2017 ONCA 16
Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183
Keywords: Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Municipal Law, Land Use Planning, Constitutional Law, Separation of Powers, Appointment of Judges, Breach of Public Trust, Civil Procedure, Public Interest Standing, Constitution Act, 1867, 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s. 96, Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023, S.O. 2023, c. 25, Sched. 2, s. 17, Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.18, Ontario Heritage Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.18, Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, Poorkid Investments Inc. v. Ontario (Solicitor General), 2023 ONCA 172, Ontario Place Protectors v. His Majesty the King, 2024 ONSC 1826, Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 45, Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26, Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34, Reference re Amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act (N.S.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 186, Reference re Code of Civil Procedure (Que.), art. 35, 2021 SCC 27, Crevier v. A.G. (Québec) et al., [1981] 2 S.C.R. 220, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, Just v. British Columbia, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1228, Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, British Columbia v. Canada Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38, Burns Bog Conservation Society v. Canada, 2014 FCA 170, La Rose v. Canada, 2023 FCA 241, Yaiguaje v. Chevron Corporation, 2018 ONCA 472
Rosemont Management Inc. v. Cityzien Properties Limited, 2025 ONCA 198
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Settlements, Disclosure, Striking Pleadings, Skymark Finance Corporation v. Ontario, 2023 ONCA 234, Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Ltd., 2011 SCC 33, HU de Québec-Université Laval v. Tree of Knowledge International Corp., 2022 ONCA 467, Tallman Truck Centre Limited v. K.S.P. Holdings Inc., 2022 ONCA 66, Poirier v. Logan, 2022 ONCA 350, Aecon Buildings v. Stephenson Engineering Limited, 2010 ONCA 898
Knisley v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 185
Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Novel Duty of Care, Anns/Cooper Test, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Certification, Definition of Class, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Veterans Well-being Act, S.C. 2005, c. 21, s. 2.1, Pension Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-6, Class Proceedings Act, ss. 5(1), 8, 30, Courts of Justice Act, s. 19(1)(b), Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68, Hoy v. Expedia Group Inc., 2022 ONSC 6650, Webb v. K-Mart Canada Ltd. (1999), 45 O.R. (3d) 389 (S.C.), Mouhteros v. DeVry Canada Inc. (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 63 (S.C.), Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) 2013 ONCA 18, Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. (2009), 72 C.P.C. (6th) 158 (Ont. S.C.), Lockhart v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONSC 6573, R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42
Ly Innovative Group Inc. v Facilitate Settlement Corporation, 2025 ONCA 194
Keywords: Real Property, Residential Tenancies, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Adjournments, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 49.06, 49.09, 50.10, Rules of Professional Conduct, Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759, R. v. Colley, 2024 ONCA 524, James Estate (Re), 2024...
