Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 10 ' 14, 2025)

• Published date: 20 November 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 November 10.

In a 133-page decision in Reference re iGaming Ontario, the Court, on a statutory reference, considered whether Ontario's provincially run online gaming scheme would remain lawful and not contravene the Criminal Code if it allowed Ontario players to engage in peer‑to‑peer play with players outside Canada. A majority held the proposed model would be lawful under Criminal Code s. 207(1)(a) in light of text, context, and purpose of the legislative scheme, and emphasizing Ontario's ongoing control over the scheme for its players. The dissenting judge would have found the scheme unlawful.

In National Steel Car v. Hamilton, the Court mostly upheld a trial judgment that found both the City of Hamilton and ArcelorMittal Dofasco equally responsible for chronic flooding of NSC's property due to decades of neglect, obstruction, and mismanagement of a nearby drainage channel. The Court affirmed the trial judge's findings on liability, mitigation, and punitive damages, concluding that both defendants engaged in serious and sustained misconduct that justified equal appointment and censure. The only modification to the trial judge's order was to slightly narrow one paragraph of the injunction requiring the defendants to remediate their property to avoid any suggestion that the defendants had been ordered to guarantee through their remediation that there would be no more flooding.

In Nowakowski v. Campbell, the Court held that under s. 192(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, co-owners of a motor vehicle were jointly vicariously liable for the negligence of the driver if either one consented to a driver's possession or operation of the vehicle, and both their insurance covered the loss.

In McCormack v. Evans, the Court upheld the dismissal of a former Toronto police officer's civil claims for malicious prosecution and related torts arising from a corruption investigation against him in which his communications had been intercepted under a wiretap authorization. The appellant alleged that the authorization had been tainted by the investigator's misdescription of two sources as confidential informants and that police had lacked both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to charge him. The Court found the intercepted communications properly admissible, the deception insufficient to invalidate the authorization, and the evidence strongly supportive of reasonable and probable grounds.

In Angelillo v Mughal, both parties appealed a final order in divorce proceedings denying the father's relocation request and establishing new parenting time and child support arrangements. On appeal, the Court held that the trial judge erred in law by failing to apply s. 16.93(2) of the Divorce Act, which placed the burden of proof on the mother to show why relocation with the father (who was primary caregiver) was not in the child's best interests. The dismissal of the relocation request was therefore set aside and remitted for a fresh hearing. The parenting order was otherwise entitled to deference, with all other relief sought on the father and mother's appeals denied.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Nowakowski v. Campbell, 2025 ONCA 762

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Insurance, Motor Vehicles, Coverage, Vicarious Liability, Owners, Statutory Interpretation, Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 192(2), Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I-8, s. 239(1), Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c.21, Sched. F, s. 67, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 21.01(1)(a), Mazur v. Elias (2005), 75 O.R. (3d) 299 (C.A.), Cummings v. Budget Car Rentals Toronto Ltd. (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Thompson v. Bourchier, [1933] O.R. 525 (C.A.), Henwood v. Coburn, 2007 ONCA 882, Connors v. D-Angelo, 2017 ONSC 1104, Fernandes v. Araujo, 2015 ONCA 571, Barham v. Marsden, [1960] O.J. No. 60 (C.A.)

Reference re iGaming Ontario, 2025 ONCA 770

Keywords: Alcohol and Gaming, Regulation, Online Gaming, Criminal Law, Statutory Interpretation, Constitution Act, 1867, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 8, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 207 and 204, Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019,S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 1; Gaming Control Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 24, iGaming Ontario Act, 2024, S.O. 2024, c. 20, Sched. 9, Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 10, Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968-69, S.C. 1968-69, c. 38, s. 13, R. v. 974649 Ontario Inc., 2001 SCC 81, R. v. Hape, 2007 SCC 26, R. v. D.F., 2024 SCC 14, R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, R. v. Ghotra, 2021 SCC 12, R. v. Langan, 2020 SCC 33, R. v. Kirkpatrick, 2022 SCC 33, R. v. Hutchinson, 2014 SCC 19, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, Euro-Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 37, Piekut v. Canada (National Revenue), 2025 SCC 13, Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Directrice de la protection de la jeunesse du CISSS A, 2024 SCC 43, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal v. Schrenk, 2017 SCC 62, Heritage Capital Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co., 2016 SCC 19, Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc., 2021 SCC 51, McLean v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2013 SCC 67, M & D Farm Ltd. v. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corp., [1999] 2 S.C.R. 961, MediaQMI inc. v. Kamel, 2021 SCC 23, Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. SODRAC 2003 Inc., 2015 SCC 57, Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, Beals v. Saldanha, 2003 SCC 72, Sharp v. Autorité des marchés financiers, 2023 SCC 29, Siemens v. Manitoba (Attorney General), 2003 SCC 3, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17, Unifund Assurance Co. v. Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, 2003 SCC 40, Reference re Earth Future Lottery, 2003 SCC 10, Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004 SCC 45, Sanis Health Inc. v. British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40, British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2005 SCC 49, Morguard Investments Ltd. v. De Savoye, [1990] 3 S.C.R 1077, L'Association St. Jean-Baptiste de Montreal v. Brault (1900), 30 S.C.R. 598, IBEW Local 773 v. Lawrence, 2018 SCC 11, Callidus Capital Corp. v. Canada, 2018 SCC 47, Reference re Code of Civil Procedure (Que.), art. 35, 2021 SCC 27, Williams v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2017 FCA 252, Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re), 2021 FCA 165, John v. Ballingall, 2017 ONCA 579, Woods (Re), 2021 ONCA 190, Moreira v. Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, 2013 ONCA 121, Belwood Lake Cottagers Association Inc. v. Ontario (Environment and Climate Change), 2019 ONCA 70, Reference re iGaming Ontario, 2024 ONCA 569, University Health Network v. Ontario (Minister of Finance) (2001), 208 D.L.R. (4th) 459 (Ont. C.A.), R. v. Walsh, 2021 ONCA 43, Ontario College of Pharmacists v. 1724665 Ontario Inc. (Global Pharmacy Canada), 2013 ONCA 381, Canadian Security Intelligence Services Act (CA) (Re), 2021 FCA 165, Reference Re Earth Future Lottery (P.E.I.), 2002 PESCAD 8, 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 311, Mohawk Council of Kahnawà:ke v. iGaming Ontario, 2024 ONSC 2726, R. v. Andriopoulos, [1993] O.J. No. 3427 (Gen. Div.), Therrien c. Directeur général des élections du Québec, 2022 QCCA 1070, R. v. Anand, 2020 NSCA 12, Keystone Bingo Centre Inc. v. Manitoba Lotteries Foundation and Manitoba (1990), 69 Man. R. (2d) 63 (C.A.), Great Canadian Casino Company Ltd. v. Surrey (City) et al, 1999 BCCA 619

National Steel Car Limited v. Hamilton (City), 2025 ONCA 765

Keywords: Real Property, Torts, Nuisance, Strict Liability (Rylands v Fletcher), Negligence, Concurrent Tortfeasors, Apportionment of Fault, Remedies, Punitive Damages, Mandatory Injunctions, Defences, Mitigation, Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. N.1., s. 1 and 4, Rylands v. Fletcher, [1868] UKHL 1, L.R. 3 H.L. 330, Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 181, Martin v. Listowel Memorial Hospital (2000), 51 O.R. (3d) 384 (C.A.), Cempel v. Harrison Hot Springs Hotel Ltd. (1997), 43 B.C.L.R. (3d) 219 (C.A.), Rizzi v. Marvos, 2008 ONCA 172, 236 O.A.C. 4, Heller v. Martens, 2002 ABCA 122, Parent v. Janandee Management Inc., 2017 ONCA 922, Ault v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 ONCA 147, Ingles v. Tutkaluk Construction Ltd., 2000 SCC 12, Aquino v. Bondfield Construction Co., 2024 SCC 31, Southcott Estates Inc. v. Toronto Catholic District School Board, 2012 SCC 51, Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18, Business Development Bank of Canada v. 170 Willowdale Investments Corp., 2025 ONCA 251

McCormack v. Evans, 2025 ONCA 767

Keywords: Torts, Malicious Prosecution, Negligent Prosecution, Negligent Investigation, Misfeasance in Public Office, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distrees, Charter Claims, Evidence, Admissibility, Intercepted Communications, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8, s. 11(b), s. 24(1), s. 24(2), Liquor Licence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.19, Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.15, R. v. McCormack et al., 2006 ONCJ 320, R. v. McCormack, 2009 CanLII 76382 (Ont. S.C.), R. v. McCormack, 2009 CarswellOnt 7019 (S.C.), Miazga v. Kvello Estate, 2009 SCC 51, Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, R. v. Barros, 2011 SCC 51, R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, R. v. Araujo, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 992, R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, R. v. Durham Regional Crime Stoppers Inc., 2017 SCC 45, Boucher v. The Queen, [1955] S.C.R. 16, Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65, R. v. Nixon, 2011 SCC 34, R. v. Anderson, 2014 SCC 41, R. v. Varennes, 2025 SCC 22, National Industries Inc. v. Kirkwood, 2023 ONCA 63, Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, R. v. Bisson,...