Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 8 ' 12, 2025)

• Published date: 16 September 2025
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: John Polyzogopoulos

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 8, 2025.

In Gayle v. Cambridge Mercantile Corp., the Court dismissed an appeal of the dismissal of a professional negligence claim against the appellant's former lawyers for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence in a settlement she made with her former employer in a wrongful dismissal case. The Court agreed with the motion judge and found there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

In Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, the appellant sued the LSO and others as a result of his failure to obtain his law licence after failing the barrister's bar exam four times. His claim against the non-LSO defendants was struck as disclosing no cause of action, with no leave to amend. He then moved to add the non-LSO defendants as necessary parties to the outstanding claim against the LSO, and to amend his claim to plead negligence against the non-LSO defendants. The Court held that the motion judge correctly found the issue of whether the non-LSO defendants could be added as necessary parties had been "finally determined" in the prior motion that struck the claim against them (and that the attempt to add them again was therefore an abuse of process), and that the proposed negligence claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Rodriguez-Vergara v. Lamoureux was a priority/coverage dispute between motor vehicle insurers where there was an accident involving an underinsured driver.

In Happy v. Narouz, the Court dismissed an appeal in a fact-specific family law case.

Lee v. Chang was a breach of contract and deceit case. The plaintiffs lost at trial and on appeal. A transcript of a recording they relied upon was excluded as unreliable because it had not been prepared by an accredited translator.

Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. R.E. was a child protection case.

Other topics covered included extension of time to appeal.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

CIVIL DECISIONS

Gayle v. Cambridge Mercantile Corp., 2025 ONCA 612

[Sossin, Favreau and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

W. Kerr, as agent for the appellant

L. Ritacca and O. Eng, for the respondents

Keywords: Contracts, Employment, Wrongful Dismissal, Torts, Professional Negligence, Lawyers, Conspiracy, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Evidence, Expert Evidence, Foreign Law, Krawchuk v. Scherbak, 2011 ONCA 352, Formosa v. Persaud, 2020 ONCA 368

facts:

The appellant, S.G., brought a wrongful dismissal action against Cambridge Mercantile Corp. ("Cambridge"), claiming, among other things, unpaid compensation for work on Jewish holidays. Her counsel, J.S. and R.S., with input from M.F., represented her. After mediation, the parties settled, with the appellant's spouse, W.K., receiving $500,000 and a full mutual release signed. Over a year later, S.G. sued her former lawyers and Lerners LLP for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and negligence, alleging they conspired with Cambridge and induced her to accept an improvident settlement. The respondents moved for summary judgment, which was granted. The motion judge found no genuine issue for trial and no merit to S.G.'s claims.

issue:

Did the appellant's claim against the respondents raise a genuine issue for trial?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

No. At the oral hearing, S.G.'s primary argument was that the motion judge misinterpreted a provision in the memorandum of agreement, submitting that section 6(b) entitled her to all profits Cambridge made on Jewish holidays and that her interpretation was consistent with Jewish law. The Court saw no merit to this argument, highlighting it was not the task of the motion judge to reach a correct interpretation of the memorandum of agreement, but, rather, to determine whether there was a genuine issue for trial that the advice the respondents gave the appellant leading to the settlement was unreasonable and fell below the standard of care. The Court saw no error in the motion judge's determination, finding his explanation well supported by the record and concluding that the respondents gave reasonable advice to S.G. The motion judge specifically addressed the interpretation of section 6(b) and found that S.G. reached a reasonable settlement in the circumstances of her case.

The appellant also submitted that it was an error for the motion judge to decide the motion in the respondents' favour in the absence of expert evidence on Jewish law and on the standard of care. The Court disagreed, stating that the memorandum of agreement was to be interpreted in accordance with Ontario law and that whether Jewish law prohibited religious observers from earning profits on holidays would not determine the terms of the agreement. The Court found no error in the motion judge's analysis, noting that the extensive evidentiary record allowed the motion judge to find there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the claims of collusion or improvident settlement. The Court held that the appellant failed to put her best foot forward in responding to the motion for summary judgment and saw no errors in the motion judge's analysis.

Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONCA 613

[Sossin, Favreau and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A.S., acting in person

S. Aylward and S. Fooks for the respondents

Keywords: Regulated Professions, Lawyers, Civil Procedure, Abuse of Process, Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings; Adding Parties, Necessary Parties, Striking Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B., Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 5, r. 26.02, Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, 2022 ONSC 2732, Shaulov v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 95, Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4, Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, Mancinelli v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2018 ONCA 544, Aba-Alkhail v. University of Ottawa, 2013 ONCA 633, Winter v. Sherman Estate, 2018 ONCA 703, The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354

facts:

The appellant applied for a licence to practise law in October 2017, after completing the LSO's Law Practice Program. While he passed his solicitor examination, he failed the barrister examination four times. In accordance with the LSO's bylaws, his application for a licence was deemed abandoned.

The appellant issued the statement of claim in this proceeding against the LSO and three other defendants: Performance Assessment Group Inc., JB and MW (collectively, "the non-LSO defendants"). The non-LSO defendants were consultants involved in the design of the LSO's licensing exam. In the original statement of claim, the Appellant alleged violations of the Human Rights Code against the non-LSO defendants.

The defendants to the appellant's original action brought a motion to strike the claim. Vermette J. struck the claims against the non-LSO defendants without leave to amend, and also struck part of the LSO claims, with leave to amend. The appellant appealed that decision to this Court, and the Court upheld the dismissal of the non-LSO claims but sent part of the LSO claim back to the Superior Court.

The appellant sought to amend his statement of claim to plead negligence against the non-LSO defendants and argued they were necessary parties to the claim against the LSO under r. 5 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Vermette J. ruled the non-LSO defendants were not necessary parties, and that negligence could only be pleaded with leave under r. 26.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellant brought a motion under rr. 5 and 26.02 and pleaded negligence.

Brownstone J., the motion judge, dismissed the motion, finding the action against the non-LSO defendants had already been rejected in a previous decision. She found that the appellant's attempt to add the non-LSO defendants was an abuse of process and that the negligence claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed the motion judge's order.

issues:

1. Whether the motion judge erred in ruling...