Court Of Appeal Summaries (July 28, 2025 - August 1, 2025)

• Published date: 06 August 2025
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: John Polyzogopoulos

Good afternoon.
Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 28 to August 1, 2025.

Continue Reading

Congratulations to Blaneys' very own Eric Golden and Summer Xia for the result they obtained in Hermina Developments Inc. v. Epireon Capital Limited. The Court dismissed a motion by the debtor whose only asset was the farmland in question to stay an order permitting the sale of that land by a mortgagee pending an appeal from that sale order. The Court found no irreparable harm, no unique characteristics of the property, and held that if the appellant is successful on appeal, any losses could be remedied by an award of damages. The balance of convenience also favored the respondent mortgagee.

The Court also dismissed a motion to stay an order permitting the sale of farmland pending an appeal in Stewart Estate v. Stewart. The order in that case authorized an estate trustee to sell farmland to pay outstanding debts owed to CRA. The motion had been brought by the beneficiaries under a will.

A majority of the Court in Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers dismissed a motion by Purolator to quash CUPW's appeal from an order enjoining it from conducting secondary picketing at a Purolator facility. The motion judge found that s. 102 of the Courts of Justice Act did not apply to the motion and granted the injunction under s. 101. Section 102 applies to injunctions in "labour disputes". The Court found s. 102 clearly applied, and that the judge erred in finding it did not. The appeal was therefore from an order under s. 102, and therefore there was an appeal under that section as of right to the Court, and no leave was required to appeal to the Divisional Court. In dissent, Gomery J. was of the view that the issue of whether the motion judge erred in finding that s. 102 did not apply was for the court hearing the appeal, not the Court on this motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Since the injunction was only granted under s. 101 (the motion judge having rejected the application of s. 102), it was not an order made under s. 102. Therefore, it was an interlocutory order, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal from that order and leave to appeal it was required from the Divisional Court.

In Ontario (Transportation) v. J & P Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd., the Court allowed an appeal from an order that dismissed an action as out of time pursuant to a contractual limitation period. The contract contemplated that a referee's decision on any disputes between the parties would be made during the two-year contract. However, the referee's decision was made outside those to years. The motion judge's decision effectively immunized the referee's decision from scrutiny because it was delivered later. The Court concluded that this outcome resulted in a commercial absurdity. It determined that since the referee's decision was not made within the two years contemplated by the contract, the contractual limitation period did not apply at all and, instead, the statutory limitation period applied.

In Paradigm Change Consulting Inc. v. Boparai, the appellant persuaded the respondents (his parents and sister) to invest in various real estate schemes. The appellant fraudulently misrepresented the investment information and did not return most of the funds. The respondents obtained a Mareva injunction to prevent the sale of all the appellants' assets. The motion judge also granted the respondents' motion to amend their statement of claim and partial summary judgment and maintained the injunction. The appellants claimed that the motion judge erred in her decision and made reversible errors regarding evidence, credibility, and reasoning. The Court dismissed the appeal as having no merit and awarded substantial indemnity costs in favour of the respondents.

North House Foods Ltd. (Re) discussed in detail the application of s. 193 of the BIA to determine whether there is an appeal as of right or whether leave is required. A contractor sought leave to appeal the valuation at zero of its construction lien over the leasehold interest of the debtor that had made a proposal in bankruptcy. While leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was dismissed.

In Solmar Inc. v. Hall, the Court dismissed a motion by the Centre for Free Expression to intervene as a friend of the court in an appeal from the dismissal of an anti-SLAPP motion.

In Galati v. Toews, the Court dismissed a prominent lawyer's appeal from an order dismissing his defamation action under the anti-SLAPP provisions in s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. The dispute related to public criticism of the lawyer's handling of class action litigation against governments for COVID-19 pandemic policies, which resulted in the lawyer suing his critics.

Wishing all our readers an enjoyable Simcoe Day long weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Hermina Developments Inc. v. Epieon Capital Limited, 2025 ONCA 559

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Enforcement, Power of Sale, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 63.02, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.), Wilfert v. McCallum, 2017 ONCA 895, Cavalho Estate v. Verma, 2024 ONCA 222, Zafar v. Saijid, 2017 ONCA 919, M & M Homes Inc. v 2088556 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 134, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311

Stewart Estate v. Stewart, 2025 ONCA 575

Keywords: Wills and Estates, Estate Liabilities, Trustees, Powers, Sale of Trust Property, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, r.63.02(1), Hale v. Stewart, 2025 ONSC 2275, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311

Purolator Inc. v. Canadian Union of Postal Workers, 2025 ONCA 565

Keywords: Labour and Employment, Secondary Picketing, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Expression, Civil Procedure, Orders, Injunctions, Ex Parte (Without Notice), Appeals, Jurisdiction, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b), Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 101, 102, 19(1), Judicature Act, R.S.O. 1960, c. 197, s. 17(1), R.W.D.S.U., Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., 2002 SCC 8, Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. v. Pomeroy (1999), 49 C.L.R.B.R. (2d) 285 (Ont. Gen. Div.), Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R., Ontario Power Generation Inc. v. Society of Energy Professionals, [2005] O.J. No. 3822 (Ont. S.C.), Georgian Downs Limited v. Ontario Harness Horse Racing Association, 2007 CanLII 1341 (Ont. S.C.), AirTime Express Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union No. 419, 2017 ONSC 5401, Canadian Pacific Railway Company v. Gill et al., 2013 ONSC 256, Southern Sanitation Inc (Wasteco) v. Fiore, 2009 CanLII 35724 (Ont. S.C.), Metro Ontario Inc. v. Teamsters Local 938, [2019] O.J. No. 2060, Stamos v. Belanger, [1994] O.J. No. 2780 (Ont. C.A.), J. N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428, 284 C.C.C. (3d) 500, Paulpillai Estate v. Yusef, 2020 ONCA 655, Prescott & Russell (United Counties) v. David S. Laflamme Constructions Inc., 2018 ONCA 495, Arcamm Electrical Services Ltd. v. Avison Young Real Estate Management Services LP, 2024 ONCA 251, Dal Bianco v. Deem Management Services Limited, 2020 ONCA 585, RREF II BHB IV Portofino, LLC v. Portofino Corporation, 2015 ONCA 906, per Gomery J.A. (dissenting), Hordo v. Zweig, 2021 ONCA 893, Ontario Medical Assn. v. Miller (1976), 14 O.R. (2d) 468 (C.A.), Deltro Group Ltd. v. Potentia Renewables Inc., 2017 ONCA 784, Laurentian Plaza Corp. v. Martin (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 111 (C.A.), Amphenol Canada Corp. v. Sundaram, 2019 ONCA 932, Wang v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2018 ONCA 605, Report of the Royal Commission Inquiry into Labour Disputes, (Toronto: Frank Fogg Queen's Printer, 1968)

Ontario (Transportation) v. J & P Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd., 2025 ONCA 573

Keywords: Contracts, Contract Interpretation, Civil Procedure, Construction Law, Summary Judgment, Standard of Review, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 4, 22, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, [2014] 2 S.C.R. 633, Ledcor Construction Ltd. v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co., 2016 SCC 37, 2484234 Ontario Inc. v. Hanley Park Developments Inc., 2020 ONCA 273, Toronto (City) v. W. H. Hotel Ltd., [1966] S.C.R. 434, Kentucky Fried Chicken Canada v. Scott's Food Services Inc. (1998), 114 O.A.C. 357, Boyce v. The Co-Operators General Insurance Company, 2013 ONCA 298

Paradigm Change Consulting Inc. v. Boparai, 2025 ONCA 569

Keywords: Torts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Partial Summary Judgment, Mareva Injunctions, Substantial Indemnity Costs, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 20.04(2.1)

North House Foods Ltd. (Re), 2025 ONCA 563

Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Proposals, Construction Liens, Valuation of Security, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Appeals as of Right, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, ss. 50, 50.1, 50.5, 58, 193, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6, Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-36, Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C30, Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, C.R.C, c. 368, rr. 3, 31(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 61.08(3), Re Mernick (1994), 24 C.B.R. (3d) 8 (Ont. Gen. Div.), Workgroup Designs Inc. (Re), 2008 ONCA 214, Ting (Re), 2021 ONCA 425 and [2021] SCCA No. 307, Canada (Superintendent of Bankruptcy) v. 407 ETR Concession Company Ltd., 2012 ONCA 569, Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, Giardino (Re), 2011 ONCA 312, First National Financial GP Corporation v. Golden Dragon HO 10 Inc., 2019 ONCA 873, J.N. v. Durham Regional Police Service, 2012 ONCA 428, Ravelston Corp. (Re) (2005), 24 C.B.R. (5th) 256 (Ont. C.A.), Elias v....