Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 10 ' 14)

• Published date: 19 February 2025
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: Mr John Polyzogopoulos

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of February 10, 2025.

Continue Reading

In Beaumont v Beaumont, the Court dismissed the appellants' appeal from the trial judge's finding that the appellant father had "banked" his respondent sons' earnings and an award of punitive damages and substantial indemnity costs.

In Rivard v Ontario, the Court upheld the Divisional Court's ruling that the respondent had sufficiently pleaded negligence claims against the Chief of Police but found that the allegations against the Police Services Board did not support a direct negligence claim, as the Board's role is limited to oversight and policy-setting. The Court affirmed the Board's vicarious liability for officers' torts but struck allegations related to systemic issues such as racism and police brutality, as they lacked sufficient factual support to establish a direct negligence claim.

In Sundial Homes (Sharon) Limited v Wei, the Court dismissed the main appeal but allowed the cross-appeal on costs. The appellant obtained judgment for less than the $100,000 simplified procedure threshold (as it then was). Accordingly, it was found not to be entitled to costs under the mandatory costs consequences of Rule 76.13. There was no good reason to depart from the rule in this case.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Beaumont v. Beaumont, 2025 ONCA 94

Keywords: Employment Law, Wages and Benefits, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Piercing Corporate Veil, Civil Procedure, Costs, Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16,Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133(b), Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.,2014 ONCA 419, O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd.,2021 ONCA 385, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.,2002 SCC 18, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, Baker v. Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONCA 842, NDrive Navigation Systems S.A. v. Zhou, 2022 ONCA 602

Rivard v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 100

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Police Liability, Civil Procedure, Pleadings, Particulars, Striking Pleadings, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 9, 12, Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, ss. 31(1), 31(3), 41, 50(1), Criminal Code, s. 25, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 21.01, 25.11, 25.06, Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, Guergis v. Novak, 2013 ONCA 449, Frank v. Legate, 2015 ONCA 631, Operation Dismantle v. The Queen, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 441, Connor v. Scotia Capital Inc., 2018 ONCA 73, R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, 2003 SCC 69, Miguna v. Ontario (Attorney General) (2005), 262 D.L.R. (4th) 222 (Ont. C.A.) (Miguna No. 1), Miguna v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2008 ONCA 799, 301 D.L.R. (4th) 540 (Miguna No. 2), Pringle v. London (City) Police Force, [1997] O.J. No. 1834 (C.A.), Haggerty v. Rogers, 2011 ONSC 5312, Solak v. Brantford Police Services Board, 2022 ONSC 4025, Rebello v. Ontario, 2023 ONSC 3574, Romagnuolo v. Hoskin, [2001] O.T.C. 673 (S.C.), Dawson v. Baker, 2017 ONSC 6477, Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 2024 ONCA 606, PMC York Properties Inc. v. Siudak, 2022 ONCA 635, Jensen v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 2023 FCA 89, Castrillo v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2017 ONCA 121, Meekis v. Ontario, 2021 ONCA 534, Burns v. RBC Life Insurance Company, 2020 ONCA 347

Sundial Homes (Sharon) Limited v. Wei, 2025 ONCA 102

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and Sale of Land, Remedies, Damages, Mitigation, Civil Procedure, Simplified Procedure, Costs, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 76.13, Azzarello v. Shawqi, 2019 ONCA 820, Garisto v. Wang, 2008 ONCA 389, Michael Foulds & Peter Henein, eds., Watson & McGowan'sOntario Civil Practice 2025 (Toronto: Carswell, 2024)

Short Civil Decisions

Wang v. Li, 2025 ONCA 101

Keywords: Family Law, Costs

MCC Mortgage Holdings Inc. v. Robinson, 2025 ONCA 104

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment

Hamilton v. Vaughan, 2025 ONCA 98

Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Libel, Slander, Civil Procedure, Anti-SLAPP, Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.12, ss. 5(1), 6, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s.137.1(8), Levant v. Day, 2019 ONCA 244, Veneruzzo v. Storey, 2018 ONCA 688

Extreme Toronto Sports Club v. Razor Management Inc., 2025 ONCA 114

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Canada Emergency Commercial Rent Assistance, Sattva Capital Corp v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53

CIVIL DECISIONS

Beaumont v. Beaumont, 2025 ONCA 94

[Hourigan, Wilson and Madsen JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J. Waxman and C. DeMarinis, for the appellants

L. Century and A. Chen, for the respondents

Keywords: Employment Law, Wages and Benefits, Remedies, Damages, Punitive Damages, Piercing Corporate Veil, Civil Procedure, Costs, Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16,Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133(b), Boucher v. Wal-Mart Canada Corp.,2014 ONCA 419, O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd.,2021 ONCA 385, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co.,2002 SCC 18, Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130, Baker v. Blue Cross Life Insurance Company of Canada, 2023 ONCA 842, NDrive Navigation Systems S.A. v. Zhou, 2022 ONCA 602

facts:

This appeal arose from litigation between family members related to a family business. At trial, the respondent sons testified that their father, one of the appellants who runs several companies including the appellant businesses, "banked" their earnings, with the intention that they would be paid at a later date. In contrast, the father testified that there was no plan to bank wages. Instead, he said that money advanced to his sons were loans from him and his wife, another appellant.

The trial judge accepted the respondent's evidence that the payments were banked wages and found that the appellant father was liable. The trial judge also awarded the respondents $75,000 each in punitive damages and substantial indemnity costs of $302,189.99.

issues:

Did the motion judge err in:

• Characterizing the payments as banked wages instead of loans?
• Piercing the corporate veil?
• Awarding punitive damages?
• Awarding costs on a substantial indemnity basis?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

No. The Court held that the appellant's submission that the trial judge erred in characterizing the payments as banked wages instead of loans essentially asked the Court to reweigh the evidence and reach an alternate finding. The Court explained that this is not the role of an appellate court, but...