ONCA 2025

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered an appeal from a trial decision setting aside a mortgage and construction contract on the basis of fraudulent misrepresentation and unconscionability.

The appellants, including Xpert Credit Control Solutions Inc. and its director Sam Joshi, challenged the trial judge’s findings and the scope of the remedy.

The Court upheld the findings of liability but found the trial judge erred in setting aside the entire mortgage and awarding speculative damages.

The Court reduced the enforceable mortgage amount to $319,000, reflecting only the legitimate debt, and upheld $153,000 in damages for negligent construction, setting aside the requirement to pay $250,000 into trust.

The appellant, Shiu Yiu Kong, appealed the dismissal of his application for an oppression remedy under the OBCA and CBCA.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s consideration of the statutory provisions, legal principles, or factual findings.

The court held that the appellant’s criticisms of the companies’ books and records did not amount to oppressive conduct, especially as the supporting evidence was inadmissible opinion evidence.

The real dispute was over the price and method of share purchase, which did not warrant court intervention.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of 170 Willowdale Investments Corp. regarding the distribution of proceeds from the sale of its hotel assets in receivership.

The appellant argued that Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), as an unsecured creditor with respect to the real property, should not receive a distribution from the net proceeds of the sale.

The court held that the Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) did not preclude payment to unsecured creditors after secured creditors were paid, and that the motion judge properly authorized the distribution to RBC, including for a loan not yet due, as there was no prejudice to the debtor.

The appellant, C.O., appealed convictions for two counts of sexual interference involving his then partner’s 14-year-old daughter.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the trial judge erred in her application of the principles from R. v. J.J.R.D. and whether she drew speculative inferences or misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law, including her treatment of peripheral evidence and credibility findings.

The appellant’s application to admit fresh evidence was also dismissed as not meeting the legal threshold.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario granted an extension of time to appeal an order validating two technically deficient wills under s. 21.1(1) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The moving parties, who had not opposed the application at first instance, explained their delay and raised serious issues about the testamentary intentions of the deceased and the application judge’s process.

The court found no undue prejudice to the responding party and dismissed a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Garlicky Mediterranean Grill Inc., finding no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s email correspondence did not amount to the exercise of an option to renew the lease.

The court held that the findings below were entitled to deference and awarded costs to the respondent.

The appellant, P.R., appealed his convictions for sexually assaulting two 15-year-old complainants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the appellant’s evidence regarding his sexual preferences or rely on unsupported generalizations or stereotypes.

The trial judge’s findings were grounded in the evidence, and the reasons were read in context and as a whole.

The Empowerment Council sought leave to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the refusal to certify a proposed class action concerning psychiatric inpatients at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed intervener’s submissions were largely duplicative of the appellants’ and would not usefully contribute to the resolution of the appeal without prejudicing the parties.

The appellant, D.R., appealed convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, assault, and uttering threats, as well as the imposition of a lifetime SOIRA order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or credibility assessments.

The court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the evidentiary record was insufficient to substitute a 20-year SOIRA order for the lifetime order.

The appellant retains the right to apply to the Superior Court to vary the SOIRA order’s length.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal of P.P. from convictions for assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, unlawful confinement, and attempted extortion, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial.

The court found that the trial judge made errors by relying on unsupported assumptions about arranged marriages, improperly relying on an evidentiary fact without giving counsel an opportunity to make submissions, and drawing conclusions based on government COVID protocols without evidentiary foundation.

These errors rendered the convictions unsafe.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the Crown's appeal from acquittals on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement, finding that the trial judge erred in law by failing to consider similar act evidence holistically.

The trial judge focused on minor dissimilarities between witness accounts rather than the striking similarities, which deprived the Crown of critical identification evidence.

The Court ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mason Perry’s appeal from a lifetime driving prohibition imposed as an ancillary order following his conviction for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving.

The court reviewed the facts, sentencing principles, and comparable cases, finding that the sentencing judge did not err in principle and that the prohibition was not demonstrably unfit.

The court emphasized the individualized nature of sentencing, the importance of public protection, and the relevance of mental health as a mitigating factor.

The decision confirms that lifetime driving prohibitions, though rare, may be appropriate in serious cases, especially where public safety is at risk.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The court found that the motion judge erred in law by holding that the purchasers' requisitions regarding oil and gas leases were invalid because they did not go to the root of title.

The court was not satisfied that it could determine the validity of the requisitions on the record before it.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Berge Marcarian from the trial judge’s determination of the date of separation in his marriage to Karen Nairi Kassabian.

The trial judge found the date of separation to be May 16, 2021, as asserted by the wife, rather than December 10, 2014, as claimed by the husband.

The appellate court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in her factual findings or application of the law, and that her reasons were sufficient.

The decision provides a comprehensive review of the legal principles and factors relevant to determining the date of separation in family law, emphasizing the objective, fact-driven nature of the analysis and the high deference owed to trial judges on such determinations.

Following a successful appeal that set aside the dismissal of their action under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, the appellants sought costs of the motion below.

The respondents argued that the presumption against costs in s. 137.1(8) should apply.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the appellants that the presumption should not apply because the underlying dispute was a private matter and not a SLAPP.

The court awarded the appellants costs of the motion below fixed at $30,000.

The appellant, K.Q.S., appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault, as well as the resulting five-year custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach to the evidence or in the treatment of delayed disclosure.

The sentence was deemed fit and within the appropriate range.

Both the conviction and sentence appeals were dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Rene Luypaert’s appeal from an order granting the sale of a jointly owned property and a writ of possession for another property, both owned by his parents, for whom his sisters acted as litigation guardians.

The court found no error in the application judge’s refusal to grant an adjournment, in the application of the Partition Act, or in the issuance of the writ of possession.

The court also confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the appeal, given the mixed nature of the relief granted.

Costs were awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Judith Lorraine Farrage and Edmund Farrage regarding the accounting and proceeds from three mortgaged properties in Kitchener, Ontario.

The application judge’s acceptance of the respondent’s expert calculations, subject to a property tax adjustment, was upheld.

The Court found no error in the application judge’s approach to interest calculations or in her assessment of damages, and awarded costs of $7,500 to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals of James Keena, who was convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault involving a complainant aged 14-15.

The court found that the trial judge correctly applied the law regarding the accused’s failure to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant’s age and was justified in finding recklessness.

The sentence of five years’ imprisonment was found to be within the appropriate range, considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court rejected the argument that the complainant’s participation was a mitigating factor.