Renee Pomerance

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether an injunction restraining secondary picketing by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers at a Purolator facility was governed by section 101 or section 102 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The majority held that the definition of "labour dispute" in section 102 encompasses secondary picketing, and therefore, the appeal route lies to the Court of Appeal without leave under section 102(10).

The dissenting judge would have quashed the appeal, holding that the order was made under section 101 and thus appealable only to the Divisional Court with leave.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellants’ appeal from a judgment granting partial summary judgment and continuing a Mareva injunction in favour of the respondents.

The appellants, led by Navdeep Singh Boparai, had persuaded the respondents to invest over $1 million in various schemes, which the motion judge found to be fraudulent.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis, including her findings of fraudulent misrepresentation, her application of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and her decision to continue the Mareva injunction.

The appeal was dismissed with substantial indemnity costs awarded to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter requires police to provide a detainee with a renewed opportunity to consult counsel before a strip search incident to arrest.

The Court held that, given the highly invasive nature of strip searches, the right to reconsult is necessary to fulfill the purpose of section 10(b).

The Court found two additional Charter breaches: a 20-minute delay in informing the appellant of his right to counsel, and the failure to provide an opportunity to reconsult before the strip search.

However, after a fresh section 24(2) analysis, the Court concluded that the evidence was properly admitted and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aris Saha’s conviction and sentence appeals for sexual assault.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s analysis of consent, including her treatment of the complainant’s alleged statement about “liking it rough” and her assessment of the evidence regarding subjective consent.

The court also upheld the 12-month custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge properly considered the available sentencing options and relevant factors.

The appellant, Deepan Budlakoti, appealed his conviction for firearms offences, arguing that he was entrapped by a police agent.

The Court of Appeal addressed three grounds: alleged improper reliance on a hearsay statement, failure to consider the police agent’s financial motive, and failure to treat the agent as a Vetrovec witness.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s approach to any of these issues and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Hunter Smith’s appeal from his conviction and sentence for aggravated assault arising from a nightclub incident.

The court found no merit in the arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, failed to consider all relevant evidence, or erred in sentencing.

The court addressed the risk of cross-racial misidentification but found it was not a serious danger in this case.

The five-month custodial sentence was upheld as fit and principled.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether comments about future ownership of a family farm gave rise to an enforceable assurance under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.

The trial judge had awarded damages to Tim Metske and Amanda Herlick on the basis of proprietary estoppel, but the Court of Appeal set aside this finding, holding there was no clear promise or assurance, nor reasonable reliance.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on unjust enrichment and equitable set-off, resulting in a reduced damages award.

This addendum to the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Hillier v. Ontario addresses the appropriate constitutional remedy for unjustified limits on peaceful assembly rights under the Charter during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court discusses the principles of “reading in” and “reading down” as remedial tools, ultimately preferring reading down the impugned regulations to exclude peaceful outdoor protests of up to 10 people from the prohibition on gatherings.

The court’s approach is guided by Supreme Court authority and the need to respect legislative intent while vindicating Charter rights.

The appellant, S.D.C., appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against his daughter.

He argued that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence and failed to properly apply the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that her reasons were careful, comprehensive, and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a sentence appeal by Brendan Bananish from a 7-year and 3-month global sentence (reduced to 24 months after credit), designation as a long-term offender, and an 8-year long-term supervision order, following a violent attack on an intimate partner.

The appellant raised several grounds of appeal, including alleged expert bias, dispute of prior conviction facts, and the fairness of the sentencing process.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in the grounds raised and dismissed the appeal, granting leave to appeal sentence but upholding the trial judge’s findings and sentence.

The appellant, Errol Francis, appealed the sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The only issue on appeal was whether the sentencing judge erred by not considering that a conditional sentence order would have preserved the appellant’s right to appeal under s. 36(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The Court of Appeal found that, although defence counsel misstated the law, the sentencing judge’s reasons made clear that a conditional sentence would have been unfit given the seriousness of the case.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

This addendum to the judgment in McKenzie-Barnswell v. Xpert Credit Control Solutions Inc., 2025 ONCA 253, clarifies issues regarding post-judgment interest, costs, and the status of the mortgage at issue.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario confirms that post-judgment interest is to be calculated at the statutory rate under the Courts of Justice Act, not the rate in the mortgage, due to findings of unconscionability and wrongful conduct.

The court upholds the trial judge’s substantial indemnity costs award, orders a set-off of costs against the respondent’s indebtedness, and confirms that the unconscionable mortgage shall not be re-registered.

Monies paid into court as security for costs are to be paid out to the appellants’ lawyers in trust.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the issue of costs following an appeal between the Township of Adelaide Metcalfe and the Municipality of Strathroy-Caradoc.

The court determined that there would be no costs of the appeal, as the determinative issue was not raised before the Divisional Court.

The costs previously ordered by the Divisional Court were set aside.

The appellant, Clayton Williams, appealed his conviction and indeterminate sentence for offences arising from two break and enters, one involving the sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl.

The Court of Appeal rejected arguments that the verdict was unreasonable, that the search warrant was invalid, and that a determinate sentence with long-term supervision was more appropriate.

The court found the trial judge’s factual findings and risk assessment reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Dianne Pearl Douglas from a final order in a family law proceeding concerning parental decision-making, parenting time, and child support.

The appellant argued that the motion judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances and in determining that the respondent’s parenting time met the 40% threshold under the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The Court found no error in the motion judge’s findings or application of the law, upholding the retroactive adjustment to child support and awarding costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Terrence Chapman, who sought a 50% share in real estate and corporate assets held with Sandra Ing, his former partner in both business and personal life.

The trial judge found that the parties were not involved in a joint family venture and that Chapman would be unjustly enriched by an equal division, given Ing’s substantial contributions to the value of the property in question.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, finding no juristic reason for Chapman’s enrichment under the Ontario Business Corporations Act and confirming the appropriateness of a proprietary remedy in favour of Ing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Matthew James Avery from an uncontested trial order requiring him to pay child support, s. 7 expenses, and granting a vesting order for sole title to the matrimonial home to Angela Nadine Wade.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify hearing the appeal, no error in the trial judge’s exercise of discretion, and that the appellant had adequate notice of the relief sought.

The court also held that the absence of evidence of the current value of the home did not result in injustice, particularly given the appellant’s failure to participate or provide disclosure.

This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to vary parenting and support arrangements between the parties, parents of two children.

The appellant challenged 20 provisions of a comprehensive order, but the Court of Appeal found no basis for intervention.

The court upheld the motion judge’s findings of a material change in circumstances, the revised parenting schedule, the calculation of child support, the imputation of income, and the costs award.

The appellant’s motion to introduce fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal in part, finding no error in the trial decision except for the quantum of damages.

The court ordered the judgment to be amended to reduce damages by $1,310,000 to reflect deposits paid by the appellant and to correct the amount of pre- and post-judgment interest.

Costs of the appeal and trial were fixed in favour of the Receiver.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Randy Hillier’s appeal, finding that Ontario’s absolute ban on outdoor peaceful assembly during the COVID-19 pandemic was not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.

The court held that the government failed to consider the impact of the gathering limits on the right to peaceful assembly under section 2(c) and did not tailor the restrictions to accommodate this fundamental freedom, unlike the approach taken for religious gatherings.

The decision clarifies the independent constitutional status of peaceful assembly and the necessity for governments to justify limits on this right, especially in the context of political protest.