Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of May 26, 2025.
Hillier v. Ontario is an addendum to the Court's previous decision that found that the appellant's right to peaceful assembly under s.2(c) of the Charter was restricted by pandemic-related regulations that imposed limits on public gatherings. The Court held that the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation was a reading down of the regulations so that the prohibition does not apply to gatherings for the purpose of peaceful assembly and protest of up to 10 people.
In Paddy-Cannon v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld a trial decision finding Canada liable in negligence and breach of fiduciary duty for its failure to follow through on a 1966 plan to return three Cree sisters to their maternal community. The Court dismissed appeals by both the caregiver and Canada, affirming that Canada owed an ad hoc fiduciary duty and a positive duty of care based on its discretionary role in the children's care planning, and that the plaintiffs' psychological and cultural harms were compensable in equity and tort.
In Qu v. Zhang, a family law case, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision that the wife was the 100% beneficial owner of a jointly owned home, finding that the funds she contributed were not intended as a gift. The Court also upheld the award of occupation rent against the wife.
Table of ContentsCivil Decisions
Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 396
Keywords: Constitutional Law, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Oakes Test, Remedies, Reading Down Doctrine, Provincial Offences, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(c), Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 17, Rules for Areas in Stage 1, O. Reg. 82/20, Sch. 4, s. 1(1)(c), Stay-at-Home Order, O. Reg. 265/21, Sch. 1, s. 1(1), Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.9, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259, Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, 2020 SCC 38
Paddy-Cannon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 394
Keywords: Family Law, Child Protection, Crown Wardship, Aboriginal Children, Crown Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Proximity, Reasonable Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Sui Generis Fiduciary Duties, Ad Hoc Fiduciary Duties, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Witnesses, Credibility, Indian Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 1-5, Child Welfare Act, R.S.O. 1960, c 53, Paddy-Cannon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2022 ONCA 110, R. v. C.G., 2021 ONCA 809, R. v. Sanichar, 2012 ONCA 117, Calin v. Calin, 2021 ONCA 558, R. v. Pindus, 2018 ONCA 55, Yan v. Nadarahaj, 2017 ONCA 196, R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, Ontario (Attorney General) v. Restoule, 2024 SCC 27, Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2018 SCC 4, Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010, R. v. Powley, 2003 SCC 43, Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14, Brown v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 ONSC 5637, Alberta v. Elder Advocates of Alberta Society, 2011 SCC 24, Sagharian (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ontario (Minister of Education), 2008 ONCA 411, Galambos v. Perez, 2009 SCC 48, K.L.B. v. British Columbia, 2003 SCC 51, Lafrance Estate v. Canada (Attorney General) (2003), 64 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 226, M.(K.) v. M.(H.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 6, First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada et al. v. Attorney General of Canada (for the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada), 2016 CHRT 2, Strohmaier v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2015 BCSC 1189, Reference re An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, 2024 SCC 5, Wewaykum Indian Band v. Canada, 2002 SCC 79, Williams Lake Indian Band v. Canada (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development), 2018 SCC 4, Meng Estate v. Liem, 2019 BCCA 127, Hodgkinson v. Simms, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 377, Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, Taylor v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 ONCA 479, R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19, Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 534, Waxman v. Waxman (2004), 44 B.L.R. (3d) 165 (Ont. C.A.), Jack Woodward and Ethan Krindle, Aboriginal law in Canada (Toronto: Thomson Reuters, 2025)
Qu v. Zhang, 2025 ONCA 391
Keywords: Family Law, Property, Joint Tenancies, Resulting Trusts, Remedies, Constructive Trusts, Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 14, Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, Belokon v. Krygyz Republic, 2016 ONCA 981, Entes Industrial Plants Construction & Erection Contracting Co. v. Kyrgyz Republic, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 74, SistemMühendislik Insaat Ve Sanayi Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Kyrgyz Republic, [2017] S.C.C.A. No. 75, Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, Holtby v. Draper, 2017 ONCA 932, MacIntyre v. Winter, 2021 ONCA 516, Non Chhom v. Green, 2023 ONCA 692, Chao v. Chao, 2017 ONCA 701, Griffiths v. Zambosco (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 397 (C.A.), Eileen E. Gillese, The Law of Trusts, 3rd ed. (Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2014)
CIVIL DECISIONS
Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 396
[Lauwers, Zarnett and Pomerance JJ.A.]
Counsel:
C. Fleury and H. Kheir, for the appellant.
R. Cookson and P. Ryan, for the respondent
Keywords: Constitutional Law, Freedom of Peaceful Assembly, Oakes Test, Remedies, Reading Down Doctrine, Provincial Offences, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(c), Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 17, Rules for Areas in Stage 1, O. Reg. 82/20, Sch. 4, s. 1(1)(c), Stay-at-Home Order, O. Reg. 265/21, Sch. 1, s. 1(1), Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.9, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259, Schachter v. Canada, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679, Ontario (Attorney General) v. G, 2020 SCC 38
Facts:
This decision is an addendum to the Court's decision allowing the appeal in this matter reported at Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259.
The appeal arose from a finding that the appellant, who was a member of the Legislative Assembly for the riding of Lanark-Frontenac-Kingston, defied limits imposed on gatherings during the COVID-19 pandemic and attended several protests. As a result, he was charged with provincial offences which carried a possible fine of $10,000 to $100,000 plus the possibility of imprisonment for up to a year. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of the two regulations under which he was charged, arguing that they placed limits on his s. 2(c) Charter rights (freedom of...
