ONCA 2025

The appellant appealed a summary judgment requiring payment of $2,428,476.51 plus interest and delivery of possession of mortgaged property.

The appellant's sole defence was that the respondent mortgagee failed to provide a discharge statement as required by s. 22(2) of the Mortgages Act.

The Court of Appeal found no basis to interfere with the motion judge's factual findings that the respondent had complied with the statutory requirement, noting no particular form of statement was required and the substance of the information had been provided.

Fresh evidence was refused as irrelevant.

The appellant appealed conviction and sentence on charges of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm in a vehicle, possession of MDMA, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in Charter rulings regarding arbitrary detention under s. 9 and unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8, and that the verdicts were unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on a driving prohibition, the search of a satchel near the appellant's leg was a valid search incident to arrest, and the trial judge's findings on knowledge and control for possession were supported by the record.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to address anti-Black racism principles from Morris.

The court found the failure did not impact the sentence, which was at the low end of the range for a second firearm offence.

The appellant, who had a long history of family law litigation and outstanding costs and child support arrears, appealed an SCJ order that quashed his previous appeals as an abuse of process.

He also brought motions to adduce fresh evidence and to review a single judge's decision dismissing his motion to amend his notice of appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the fresh evidence motion as irrelevant and the review motion as meritless.

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the appeal due to the appellant's continuing disobedience of court orders regarding financial obligations, and noted there was no basis for appellate intervention in any event.

The appellant condominium owner appealed a summary judgment ordering it to pay $495,888.39 in common expense arrears and granting vacant possession to the respondent condominium corporation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's use of enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve credibility issues and reject the appellant's claim of having paid in cash.

The Court also declined to entertain a new limitations defence raised for the first time on appeal.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part, finding the motion judge erred by using the oppression remedy to expand the respondent's registered condominium lien to cover unsecured arrears, as doing so could prejudice third-party creditors.

The self-represented appellant mother sought leave to appeal a costs order made following a lengthy family law trial in which the respondent father was largely successful.

The trial judge had awarded the father net costs of $20,000 after setting off support arrears, noting the father's reasonable offers to settle and the mother's bad faith conduct.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the costs award was not plainly wrong.

Leave to appeal the costs order was denied.

The moving party defendants sought an extension of time to deliver their Notice of Appeal from a trial decision finding personal liability for fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with a real estate investment.

The motion judge applied the well-settled test for extensions of time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeal as the central issue.

The moving parties failed to identify any error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the trial judge's findings, which included adverse credibility findings based on the failure to call a key witness and the failure to preserve business records.

The motion was denied with costs.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment order requiring them to pay $285,000 in damages to the respondents for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from a failed real estate transaction.

The parties had entered into an agreement for the respondents to purchase a parcel of land, conditional on the appellants obtaining municipal approval for a condominium conversion within two years.

When approval was not obtained, the respondents sued.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in concluding the appellants breached their duty of good faith.

The Court also held the motion judge erred in applying unjust enrichment where a contract governed the relationship, and failed to provide sufficient reasons for dismissing the appellants' counterclaim.

A new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its motion to add respondents as defendants to a lawyer's negligence and breach of fiduciary duty action, arguing the motion judge erred in determining the limitations issue on a motion to amend.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding the appellant failed to adduce evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability under s. 5(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and the claims were statute barred as the motion was brought more than two years after discovery according to the unrebutted presumption.

Case management direction on scheduling intervention motions and the hearing date for an appeal from the dismissal of a certification motion in a proposed class proceeding alleging systemic failures in the child welfare system respecting Indigenous children in out-of-home care off-reserve, including over-representation in care and gaps in essential services such as health and education.

The case management judge directed that intervention motion materials be filed by March 5, 2026, responding materials by April 10, 2026, and intervention motions be heard May 8, 2026.

The appeal was scheduled for two days in June or early fall 2026.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, arguing the trial judge erred by finding a proven absence of motive to fabricate or, alternatively, by improperly using the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate to bolster the complainant's credibility.

The Court of Appeal held the trial judge did not find a proven absence of motive but rather found no single motive could explain all disclosures, and that the absence of evidence of motive to fabricate was properly considered as one factor among many in the credibility assessment without undue weight.

The applicant, convicted of sexual offences against a minor and sentenced to seven years, sought bail pending his appeal.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous and there were no flight or public safety risks, but argued detention was necessary in the public interest.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding her post-offence contact with the applicant raised significant reviewability concerns.

Balancing enforceability and reviewability, the court concluded that the reviewability interest overshadowed the enforceability interest, and granted bail pending appeal.

Appeal from summary judgment granting declaratory relief regarding a mortgage registered as security for a $300,000 consulting fee contingent on the receipt of a cannabis cultivation licence from Health Canada.

The motion judge found that the fee was conditional on licence issuance and, since no licence was ever obtained, the payment obligation never crystallized.

The appellate court upheld the finding that the mortgage was not a standalone unconditional obligation but security for a contingent payment, and that the motion judge properly considered the factual matrix including the Agreement of Purchase and Sale and the Transfer and Consultancy Agreement.

The moving party, a self-represented litigant residing in California, sought an extension of time to perfect two appeals arising from a defamation default judgment and an order striking his own action as frivolous and vexatious.

The Court of Appeal applied the test for extending time, focusing on the merits of the proposed appeals.

Finding that the moving party had been properly served in the underlying proceedings and had failed to identify any reversible errors, the court concluded the appeals lacked merit.

The motion for an extension of time was denied with costs.

The appellant, a former employee, appealed the dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act and sought leave to appeal a $50,000 costs award.

The appellant had made threats to communicate damaging information to the respondent's clients and the Ministry of Transportation if unpaid wage claims were not satisfied.

The motion judge found that the appellant's communications were fundamentally about his employment dispute rather than matters of public interest, and that the respondent would easily prove the statements were false and harmful.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's analysis under s. 137.1(3) or s. 137.1(4)(b), and affirmed the costs award.

The moving parties sought to quash the responding party's appeal of an order validating service of an application record.

The responding party, a foreign state, argued the order was final because it determined substantive rights regarding state sovereignty and the Hague Convention.

The Court of Appeal held that the order validating service was procedural and interlocutory, as it did not finally dispose of the dispute or deprive the responding party of substantive defences.

The motion was granted and the appeal was quashed.

The respondents sought to confirm the south boundary of their land and remove alleged encroachments placed by the moving parties, including a fence, hound building, and cement pad.

The trial judge found in favour of the respondents after a 13-day trial, confirming the boundary and ordering removal of the encroachments within 120 days, along with nominal damages of $2,000.

The moving parties appealed and sought a stay of the judgment pending appeal.

The motion judge granted the stay, finding that while the appeal was weak on factual grounds, the balance of convenience favoured staying the order to preserve the status quo on the rural property pending the appeal.

The appellants appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their claim for non-vested stock options under a consulting agreement.

The motion judge found the agreement was not a fixed term contract and that entitlement to unvested options was contingent on the appellants remaining engaged with the respondents on each vesting date.

The appellants raised a new argument on appeal regarding breach of the duty of good faith, which was not advanced below.

The appellants also challenged the costs award.

The appellant pleaded guilty to luring a child under 16 and was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to his youth and first-offender status.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle and held the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, given the serious aggravating factors and the requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children.

The appellant was acquitted of possession of proceeds of crime after over $1.2 million in cash was excluded from his criminal trial under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown subsequently applied for forfeiture of the cash under s. 490(9) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge conducted a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, admitted the evidence, and ordered forfeiture.

On appeal, the appellant argued that his acquittal created an issue estoppel preventing the trial judge from finding his possession was unlawful or conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the acquittal did not logically necessitate a finding of lawful possession, and that a s. 24(2) analysis in a forfeiture proceeding involves different considerations than in a criminal trial.

The applicant, convicted of voyeurism, publishing child pornography, and criminal harassment involving a minor, sought bail pending his conviction appeal.

The Crown conceded the appeal was not frivolous but argued detention was necessary in the public interest to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The motion judge found the grounds of appeal to be weak but granted bail, noting the applicant had been on house arrest for three years without breaches, posed no public safety risk, and risked serving most of his 30-month sentence before the appeal could be heard.