Court Of Appeal Summaries (December 1 ' 5, 2025)

• Published date: 12 December 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 December 1, 2025.

Continue Reading

Congratulations to Blaneys' very own Reeva Finkel and Brendan Jones for the outcome they achieved for our client Hydro One Remote Communities Inc., in 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v. Hydro One Remote Communities Inc. The Court allowed our client's appeal in part by enforcing the contract's limitation of liability clause, thereby reducing the judgment against our client from over $2.7 million to only $50,000. The Court dismissed Wasaya's appeal and left in place the finding that Wasaya was liable for inducing breach of contract.

In David v. Loblaw Companies Limited, the Court held that the prior refusal to certify the bread price-fixing class action against Maple Leaf on the no cause of action ground had been a final determination with res judicata effect, barring the representative plaintiffs' attempt to revive the claims through amended pleadings or by invoking the Class Proceedings Act, 2002. The Court confirmed that the Rules of Civil Procedure do not permit amendments to circumvent a final order and that any discretion not to apply res judicata in court proceedings was limited and not engaged here.

In Robson v. Fedex, a proposed class action alleged that FedEx misrepresented its brokerage fees as government-imposed taxes and charged consumers for unsolicited customs services. The Court upheld certification of the class action, finding the pleadings disclosed viable claims under Ontario consumer protection legislation and that the legality of FedEx's standardized billing practices could be determined on a class-wide basis. The class definition properly constituted all Canadian consumers since 2016, notwithstanding jurisdictional and limitation period arguments, which were to be determined at later stages of the proceeding.

In West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Energy Inc., the Court allowed an appeal from the Divisional Court's dismissal of a judicial review application for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that the Ontario Energy Board's letters, in the absence of a hearing, constituted a binding decision resolving the parties' dispute under s. 105 of the Ontario Energy Board Act and interpreting the Distribution System Code under the Board's exclusive authority in s. 19. The Court held the decision was of a sufficiently public character to attract judicial review and was both amenable to certiorari under s. 2(1)1 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and an exercise of a "statutory power of decision" affecting legal rights under ss.1 and 2(1)2. Since the Court only decided that the Divisional Court did have jurisdiction to hear the judicial review application and did not address the merits of the judicial review application itself, it appears that the matter will need to be remitted to the Divisional Court to decide the matter on the merits.

Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company is a dispute about whether SABS should be paid to retrofit the home of a 92-year old insured's daughter to allow the insured to live with her daughter rather than in a long-term care facility. The insurers obtained an extension of time to file leave materials until after the reasons for decision of the Divisional Court are released. However, its motion to stay the order of the Divisional Court requiring it to pay for the retrofit was dismissed. Even though there was a risk the insurer might not recover the cost of the retrofit if it succeeded on the appeal, the balance of convenience favoured the insured, who was 92 and in ill-health and who may never get the benefit of the SABS before the appeal was determined.

In Proex Logistics Inc. (Re), the Court dismissed an appeal after granting leave under s. 193(e) of the BIA to decide the issues on their merits. The Court confirmed that the Trustee alone determines the value of proofs of claim filed under the BIA. The appellant filed no timely proof of claim or challenge to the Trustee's valuation of any claim under s. 135(5). That, and the fact he had unpaid costs orders and there was evidence of dissipation of assets meant he had no standing under s. 37 or s. 135 of the BIA.

In M.E. v. Children's Aid Society of Toronto, the Court dismissed M.E.'s request for leave to file a notice of appeal from the dismissal of her action for delay, finding her proposed appeal frivolous and repeating the same deficiencies that had led to a prior leave restriction.

In Lau v. Tao, the Court upheld the trial judge's equalization and property findings, except for a minor agreed upon correction.

Other topics covered included security for costs of an appeal.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v. Hydro One Remote Communities Inc., 2025 ONCA 827

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Duty of Good Faith, Limitation of Liability, Torts, Inducing Breach of Contract, Defences, Justification, Mutual Mistake, Damages, Mitigation, Electricity Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. A, s. 48.1(1), Tercon Contractors Ltd. v. British Columbia (Transportation and Highways), 2010 SCC 4, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Amberber v. IBM Canada Ltd., 2018 ONCA 571, Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45, Wastech Services Ltd. v. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, 2021 SCC 7, Spina v. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc., 2024 ONCA 642, Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Inc., 2007 ONCA 322

David v. Loblaw Companies Limited, 2025 ONCA 830

Keywords: Competition Law, Price-Fixing, Consumer Protection, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Certification, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Amending Pleadings, Adding Parties, Res Judicata, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s. 5(1), 8, 8(3), 12, ss. 8(3), 12, Competition Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-34, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 26.02, Obodo v. Trans Union of Canada, Inc., 2022 ONCA 814, 71122 Ontario Ltd. v. Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59, Drywall Acoustic Lathing Insulation Local 675 Pension Fund v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., 2020 ONCA 375, V.K. Mason Construction Ltd. v. Canadian General Insurance Group Limited (1998), 42 O.R. (3d) 618 (C.A.), The Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. VimpelCom Ltd., 2019 ONCA 354, Turner v. York University, 2011 ONSC 6151, Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, Hislop v. Canada (Attorney General), 2009 ONCA 354, Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68, Bisaillon v. Concordia University, 2006 SCC 19, Ontario New Home Warranty Program v. Chevron Chemical Co. (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 130 (S.C.), Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, 2001 SCC 46, Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, G.M. (Canada) v. Naken, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 72, Risorto v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2009), 72 C.C.L.I. (4th) 60 (Ont. Div. Ct.), Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 848

Robson v. Federal Express Canada Corporation, 2025 ONCA 831

Keywords: Contracts of Adhesion, Shipping, Consumer Protection, Unfair Practices, Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Certification, Jurisdiction, Conflict of Laws, Limitation Periods, Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, ss. 13, 14 and 15, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6., s. 5(1)(a), Rules of Civil Procedure, r.21.01(1)(b), Western Canadian Shopping Centres Inc. v. Dutton, 2001 SCC 46, Wright v. United Parcel Service Canada Ltd., 2011 ONSC 5044, aff'd 2015 ONSC 2220 (Div. Ct.), Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421, Condon v. Canada, 2015 FCA 159, Dewey v. Corner Brook Pulp and Paper Limited, 2025 NLCA 8, Carcillo v. Ontario Major Junior Hockey League, 2025 ONCA 652, Catalyst Capital Group Inc. v. Veritas Investment Research Corp., 2017 ONCA 85, Bowman v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 477, Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19, R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Bear v. Merck Frosst Canada & Co., 2011 SKCA 152, Hoy v. Expedia Group Inc., 2022 ONSC 6650, Bernstein v. Peoples Trust Company, 2017 ONSC 752, Sankar v. Bell Mobility, 2013 ONSC 5916, Graham v. Imperial Parking Canada Corporation, 2010 ONSC 4982, Magill v. Expedia, Inc., 2013 ONSC 683, Smith v. Inco Ltd., 2011 ONCA 628, Stenzler v. TD Asset Management Inc., 2020 ONSC 111, Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2013 SCC 58, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Society of Essex v. Windsor (City), 2015 ONCA 572, Hollick v. Toronto (City), 2001 SCC 68, Chadha v. Bayer Inc. (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 22 (C.A.), Webster v. Robbins Parking Service Ltd., 2016 BCSC 1863, Vallance v. DHL Express (Canada), Ltd., 2024 BCSC 140, Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. v. Gomel, 2023 BCCA 274, Ramdath v. George Brown College of Applied Arts and Technology, 2015 ONCA 921, Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57

West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Energy Inc., 2025 ONCA 821

Keywords: Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction, Standard of Review, Remedies, Certiorari, Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 15, Sched. B, ss 1(1)1, 2(1)2, 4.3(8), 19, 33(1), 57- 60, 66, 70.1, 78, 105, 107, 112.2(1), 112.2(6), 112.3-112.5, Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2, Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010, S.O. 2010, c. 8, s. 38(22), Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18, Air Canada v. Toronto Port Authority, 2011 FCA 347, Agraira v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 36, Khorsand v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2024 ONCA 597, Martineau v. Matsqui Institution, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 602...