Court Of Appeal Summaries (September 29 ' October 3, 2025)

• Published date: 07 October 2025
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: John Polyzogopoulos

Good evening.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 29, 2025.

Continue Reading

In Whitehead v. Tucker, the Court set aside the motion judge's dismissal of a contempt motion, finding that the respondents had failed to comply with a 2012 judgment requiring them to restore water drainage from the appellants' property, including removing obstructions and installing adequate drainage pipes. The Court ordered the respondents to implement the necessary drainage improvements or else the appellants could do so at the respondents' expense. In a rare move, the Court remained seized of the matter to enforce compliance with its order.

In Fang v. Yin, the motion judge found in favour of the respondent, who had claimed she had entered into a partnership in respect of a property and granted her a 50% interest, among other relief and ordered a reference on accounting issues. The appeal was dismissed.

In HSBC Bank Canada v. Guido, the Court dismissed an appeal from summary judgment granted to the bank in respect of a loan guarantee. The unsupported allegations of agency, misrepresentation and conspiracy had not been made out and were contrary to the entire agreement clauses contained in the loan documentation. The motion judge was correct to grant judgment and substantial indemnity costs.

In Robson v. Pellerin, the Court found no error in the trial judge's treatment of loans from the appellant's mother and the commencement date for spousal support. The appeal was allowed in part only to provide the appellant with further credit for certain post-separation adjustments totalling $48,025.54. In all other respects, the appeal was dismissed.

In Patel v. 2811230 Ontario Ltd., an appeal from a mortgage enforcement judgment was dismissed.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Whitehead v. Tucker, 2025 ONCA 674

Keywords: Torts, Real Property, Nuisance, Civil Procedure, Mandatory Orders, Enforcement, Contempt, Appeals, Standard of Review, Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Baxter Travenol Laboratories of Canada Ltd. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 388, Toneguzzo-Norvell (Guardian ad litem of) v. Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114, Vidéotron Ltée v. Industries Microlec Produits Électroniques Inc., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065, Waxman v. Waxman, (2004) 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), Austin v. Bell Canada, 2020 ONCA 142, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Corkery, 2009 ONCA 85, Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, Moncur v. Plante, 2021 ONCA 462, Schafer v. Schafer, 2025 ABCA 99, Miner v. Cooke, 2025 ABCA 226, Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers, 2011 ONSC 3650, Culligan Canada Ltd. v. Fettes, 2010 SKCA 151

Patel v. 2811230 Ontario Ltd., 2025 ONCA 679

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

Fang v. Yin, 2025 ONCA 682

Keywords: Contracts, Partnerships, Breach of Contract, Partnership Agreements, Civil Procedure, Procedural Fairness, Natural Justice, Summary Judgment, Injunctions, Counterclaims, Rental Property, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 20.04 (2.2) and 20.04(3)

HSBC Bank Canada v. Guido, 2025 ONCA 684

Keywords: Contracts, Debtor-Creditor, Guarantees, Substantial Indemnity Costs, Enforcement, Authority, Adverse Inference, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 20.08, Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd., 2024 ONCA 25, HSBC Bank Canada v. Guido, 2025 ONSC 869, HSBC Bank Canada v. Guido, 2024 ONSC 5750

Robson v. Pellerin, 2025 ONCA 680

Keywords: Family Law, Property Division, Gifts, Loans, Net Family Property, Exclusions, Inheritances, Matrimonial Home, Post-Separation Adjustments, Spousal Support, Duration, Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, ss. 4(1), 4(2), 5(6), Poole v. Poole (2001), 16 R.F.L. (5th) 397, Cade v. Rotstein (2004), 50 R.F.L. (5th) 280 (Ont. C.A.), Serra v. Serra, 2009 ONCA 105, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518, Green v. Green, 2015 ONCA 541

CIVIL DECISIONS

Whitehead v. Tucker, 2025 ONCA 674

[Roberts, Miller and Zarnett JJ.A.]

Counsel:

P Ingrassia, for the appellants

E. Argentino and S. Barclay, for the respondents

Keywords: Torts, Real Property, Nuisance, Civil Procedure, Mandatory Orders, Enforcement, Contempt, Appeals, Standard of Review, Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Baxter Travenol Laboratories of Canada Ltd. v. Cutter (Canada) Ltd., [1983] 2 S.C.R. 388, Toneguzzo-Norvell (Guardian ad litem of) v. Burnaby Hospital, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 114, Vidéotron Ltée v. Industries Microlec Produits Électroniques Inc., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 1065, Waxman v. Waxman, (2004) 186 O.A.C. 201 (C.A.), Austin v. Bell Canada, 2020 ONCA 142, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Corkery, 2009 ONCA 85, Chong v. Donnelly, 2019 ONCA 799, Moncur v. Plante, 2021 ONCA 462, Schafer v. Schafer, 2025 ABCA 99, Miner v. Cooke, 2025 ABCA 226, Sweda Farms Ltd. v. Ontario Egg Producers, 2011 ONSC 3650, Culligan Canada Ltd. v. Fettes, 2010 SKCA 151

Facts:

The parties have been neighbours for 25 years. For almost all that time, they have been engaged in a dispute about the respondents' interference with the flow and drainage of water from the appellants' adjacent property.

The appellants commenced an action against the respondents by way of statement of claim issued on February 11, 2003. They obtained judgment against the respondents on February 2, 2012. Among other things, the respondents were enjoined from interfering with the flow of water from the appellants' property and ordered to take steps within three months of the 2012 judgment to restore it, failing which the appellants could bring a motion for contempt. The appellants brought a motion before the trial judge in 2024 for an order that the respondents were in contempt of the 2012 judgment. The appellants' motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents of $25,000. The appellants appealed the dismissal of their contempt motion against the respondents.

Issues:

1. Did the motion judge err and misinterpret the intent of the 2012 judgment?

2. Did the motion judge err by misapprehending the appellants' expert evidence and admissions from respondents' counsel that the respondents were not in compliance with the 2012 judgment?

3. Did the motion judge err in misapplying the legal test for civil contempt?

4. If the motion judge erred, what order should the Court substitute?

Holding:

Appeal allowed.

Reasoning:

(1) Did the motion judge err and misinterpret the intent of the 2012 judgment?

Yes, and in doing so, undermined its purpose. First, the motion judge interpreted the 2012 judgment in a manner that ignored the evidence that he accepted and his findings at the 2012 trial. In 2012, the motion judge had accepted the undisputed evidence that until the respondents had interfered with the water drainage by not only crushing the pipe but also by dramatically changing the slope of their driveway and installing a rubber dam on their property, the appellants did not have a drainage problem.
The Court found that the solutions proposed by the appellants were not, as the motion judge suggested in his endorsement, aimed at improving the appellants' drainage to a level not previously enjoyed prior to the respondents' modifications to the property. Rather, the solutions were aimed at resolving the problem created by the material changes carried out by the respondents, including the damage to the pipe.
The Court found that the only way that the appellants could have been returned to their position before the respondents' interference was by the implementation of the recommendations of the appellants' expert.

(2) Did the motion judge err by misapprehending the appellants' expert evidence and admissions from respondents' counsel that the respondents were not in compliance with the 2012 judgment?

Yes. The motion judge's misinterpretation of the 2012 judgment represented a material misapprehension of or failure to consider his previous findings and the effect of the undisputed evidence that was accepted at the 2012 trial. The Court...