OCA 2025

The appellant sought leave to challenge a three-year sentence for breaching a long-term supervision order, arguing enhanced pre-sentence credit should have been granted.

Leave was granted but the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellants challenged dismissal of their action as an abuse of process.

The court agreed the claim repeated issues from prior mortgage litigation and also dismissed the fresh-evidence motion.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment holding them jointly and severally liable for $3.76 million after the respondent investors were defrauded in a second mortgage scheme.

The investment funds were misappropriated by employees of a law firm acting as agents for the appellants' gas station development project.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's application of the summary judgment framework, his conclusion that an agency relationship existed, or his imposition of joint and several liability based on findings that the defendants worked together to deprive the investors of their funds.

Leave to appeal the substantial indemnity costs award was also denied.

The appellant challenged Charter rulings after police found fentanyl during a search incident to detention.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on search scope and right-to-counsel compliance and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought release pending appeal from serious firearm-related convictions and a lengthy penitentiary sentence.

Applying s. 679(3) criteria and public-interest balancing, the court held detention remained necessary and dismissed the application.

The appellant challenged convictions based on admission and use of surreptitious recordings, alleging errors under ss. 31.1 and 31.2 of the Canada Evidence Act and in probative-prejudice analysis.

The court rejected those arguments and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant challenged summary judgment dismissing his claim.

The court rejected both appellate arguments, upheld the motion judge’s credibility and documentary-evidence assessments, and found no palpable and overriding error.

The receiver moved to determine appellate entitlement from receivership-related orders under the BIA.

The court held no appeal as of right under ss. 193(a) or (c), denied leave, and granted the receiver’s motion.

The appellant challenged an order striking the statement of claim as vexatious and abusive under procedural rules.

The court rejected all grounds, including complaints about evidentiary use and refusal of leave to amend, and upheld dismissal.

The appellants appealed an order validating unsigned 2024 draft wills under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The deceased had executed a will in 2018 and improperly executed wills in 2022, before having new drafts prepared in 2024 that remained unsigned at his death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the 2018 will as fresh evidence, set aside the validation of the 2024 drafts because they did not reflect final testamentary intentions, and remitted the issue of the 2022 wills' validity to the Superior Court for fact-finding.

The appeal challenged Ontario recognition and enforcement of a German default judgment, relying principally on an arbitration-clause public-policy defence.

The court held public policy did not bar recognition where appellants failed to raise the arbitration point in the German proceeding and dismissed the appeal.

A case management conference was held to set the timetable for two grouped appeals arising from a decision certifying a class action against the Province of Ontario but declining to certify it against 49 Children's Aid Societies regarding the use of 'Birth Alerts'.

The appeals will be heard by a five-judge panel to consider whether the court should depart from the Ragoonanan principle.

The case management judge set the schedule for responding materials, intervention motions, and factums.

The appellant, who suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia, was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for attempted murder after a vicious, unprovoked attack on his neighbour.

The trial judge subsequently designated the appellant a high-risk accused (HRA) under ss. 672.64(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge applied the wrong legal standards and that the findings were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, clarifying the distinct risk thresholds under the two subsections and finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant posed a significant risk of grave harm.

The youth appellant was convicted of manslaughter following a group assault.

At trial, the judge disbelieved the appellant's exculpatory testimony and concluded he had fabricated his account to deflect blame, using this disbelief as circumstantial evidence of guilt.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by failing to identify independent evidence of fabrication before using the disbelieved testimony as circumstantial evidence of guilt, contrary to the framework in R. v. Iqbal.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants challenged an order striking their contempt motion without leave to amend.

The court held the motion judge made no legal or principled error, upheld the costs framework used below, and dismissed both merits and costs-related challenges.

After repeated non-compliance with production and undertaking orders, including a peremptory and then last-chance order, pleadings were struck.

The court found no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s discretionary determination and upheld the sanctions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the Divisional Court and awarded fixed costs to the respondent.

In a delayed-diagnosis medical malpractice action, the defendant physician appealed findings on liability only.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s negligence and causation analysis and found no reversible error.

The appeal was dismissed and the liability determination stood.

The appellants challenged an order striking their negligence claim against the federal respondent arising from the issuance of a firearms licence to the shooter.

The court held that the Firearms Act did not itself create a private law duty of care, but that an arguable duty could arise from a combination of statutory duties and pleaded facts showing the respondent knew or ought to have known the licence holder posed a risk to the deceased or to a narrow and particularized group including him.

Because such a claim was not impossible to plead, it was not plain and obvious that the action could not succeed.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of varying the order to strike the pleading with leave to amend, and appeal costs were awarded to the appellants.

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

Following a material change in living circumstances and concession that practical utility of the appeal had dissipated pending the next annual review, the court dismissed the appeal.