Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 9-13, 2025)

• Published date: 18 June 2025
• Law Firm: Blaney McMurtry LLP
• Author: John Polyzogopoulos

In Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, the Court upheld the dismissal of a proposed class action against Amazon alleging that all of its delivery drivers (both those directly contracting with Amazon and those who are employed by third party delivery companies) are employees of Amazon with employment law claims. The Court agreed with the certification motion judge that there was no possibility for Amazon and the third party delivery companies to be found to be common employers of the drivers.

Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada v. Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America was a case relating to the internal corporate governance and passing of bylaws of non-share capital not-for-profit corporations with members rather than shareholders.

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Benevides is an occupational health and safety provincial offences prosecution where the Crown was granted leave to appeal from the trial judge's dismissal of the charges by way of a directed verdict (which acquittal was upheld on appeal). Among the issues to be argued on the further appeal to the Court will be what constitutes the actus reus of a violation under the Ontario Health and Safety Act and whether an employee's employment contract is relevant to determining their duties under the OHSA.

In Metske v. Metske, the Court allowed an appeal in a family farming succession dispute. It overturned the main $405,000 award that had been based on proprietary estoppel, leaving only some smaller damages awards in place.

Chitaroni Estate v. Coleman (Township) was a dispute with a township over whether a road had been dedicated to or assumed by the town. By the time of the hearing of the appeal, the road had become a public road. The appeal was dismissed.

720443 Ontario Inc. v. 2682543 Ontario Inc. concerned an appeal in a commercial tenancy dispute in which the trial judge found that the appellant tenant had repudiated its lease by not commencing fixturing or taking possession of the leased premises by the required date, while the landlord was also in the middle of meeting its own fixturing obligations (as provided for in the lease). The Court dismissed the appeal and agreed with the trial judge that the respondent landlord properly accepted the tenant's repudiation and lawfully terminated the lease.

Kirby v. Woods provides guidance on the protection of refugee children's privacy in family law/child protection/abduction proceedings. The Court applied the Sherman Estate framework for sealing orders to come up with a tailored confidentiality/sealing order that provides privacy protection partly by anonymizing the parties' names.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421

Keywords: Class Action, Motion, Certification Analysis, Arbitration Agreement, Common Employer Doctrine, Some Basis in Fact Standard, Plain and Obvious, Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 ("ESA"), Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 ("CPA"), s. 5, Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 7, Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1628 v Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16, TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385, Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2012 ONCA 444, Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2012 ONCA 443, McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Co., 2012 ONCA 445, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781, Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, PMC York Properties Inc. v. Siudak, 2022 ONCA 635

Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of Canada v. Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, 2025 ONCA 425

Keywords: Corporations, Not-for-Profit, Bylaws, Ultra Vires, Civil Procedure, Limitation Periods, Remedies, Declaratory Relief, Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.38, Canada Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, S.C. 2009, c. 23, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, C. 24, Farej v. Fellows, 2022 ONCA 254, Kyle v. Atwill, 2020 ONCA 476

Ontario (Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Benevides, 2025 ONCA 426

Keywords: Labour and Employment, Occupational Health and Safety, Provincial Offences, Actus Reus, Defences, Due Diligence, Civil Procedure, Directed Verdicts, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. O.1, ss. 28(1)(a), Ontario Regulation 213/91: Construction Projects, ss. 37(1), 172(1), United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067, R. v. Timminco Ltd. (2001), 54 O.R. (3d) 21 (C.A.), R. v. Greater Sudbury (City), 2023 SCC 28

Metske v. Metske, 2025 ONCA 418

Keywords: Real Property, Unjust Enrichment, Proprietary Estoppel, Detrimental Reliance, Gifts, Contracts, Intention to Create Binding Legal Relations, Defences, Equitable Set-Off, Cowper-Smith v. Morgan, 2017 SCC 61, Thorner v. Major, [2009] UKHL 18, Hawes v. Dave Weinrauch and Sons Trucking Ltd., 2017 BCCA 114, Kennett v. Diarco Farms Ltd., 2020 SKQB 124, Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada, 2021 SCC 47, Fort Frances v. Boise Cascade Canada Ltd., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 171, Hydro-Québec v. Matta, 2020 SCC 37, Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, Bruce MacDougall, Estoppel, 2nd ed., Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2019

Chitaroni Estate v. Coleman (Township), 2025 ONCA 424

Keywords: Real Property, Common Roads, Dedication, Acceptance, Municipal Law, Public Roads, Assumption, Torts, Misfeasance in Public Office, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Partial Summary Judgment, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Costs, Leave to Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 1.09[4], 3.02(4)[2], Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, Road Access Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. R.34, s. 1, Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783, Malik v. Attia, 2020 ONCA 787, Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, VP Auto Sales & Service Ltd. v. Ahmed2 Inc., 2024 ONCA 507, Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd., 2024 ONCA 25

720443 Ontario Inc. v. 2682543 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONCA 432

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Possession, Fixturing Period, Joint Occupancy, Repudiation, TNG Acquisition Inc. (Re), 2011 ONCA 535

Kirby v. Woods 2025 ONCA 437

Keywords: Family Law, Child Protection, Child Abduction, Parenting, Relocation, Immigration, Refugees, Constitutional Law, Charter Claims, Privacy, Civil Procedure, Sealing Orders, Sherman Estate Test, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Can. T.S. 1992 No. 3, Article 3.1, Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Can. T.S. 1983 No. 35, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 43, ss. 137(1)(2), Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 70(1), Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/19, Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, Vancouver Sun (Re), 2004 SCC 43, Edmonton Journal v. Alberta (Attorney General), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326, , Ontario (Children's Lawyer) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2018 ONCA 559, A.B. v. Bragg Communications Inc., 2012 SCC 46, R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10, P1 v. XYZ School, 2022 ONCA 571, S.E.C. v. M.P., 2023 ONCA 821, R. v. Mentuck, 2001 SCC 76, Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), 2002 SCC 41, F.N. (Re), 2000 SCC 35, Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122, Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835

CIVIL DECISIONS

Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, 2025 ONCA 421

[Pepall, Paciocco, Sossin J.J.A.]

Counsel:

J. Leclerc and L. Sokolov, for the appellant

D. Di Paolo, N. Effendi, L. Wagner, G. Splawski, and H. Murray, for the respondents

Keywords: Class Action, Motion, Certification Analysis, Arbitration Agreement, Common Employer Doctrine, Some Basis in Fact Standard, Plain and Obvious, Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41 ("ESA"), Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 ("CPA"), s. 5, Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 7, Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1628 v Toronto Standard Condominium Corp. No. 1636, 2020 ONCA 612, Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16, TELUS Communications Inc. v. Wellman, 2019 SCC 19, Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, O'Reilly v. ClearMRI Solutions Ltd., 2021 ONCA 385, Fresco v. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, 2012 ONCA 444, Fulawka v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2012 ONCA 443, McCracken v. Canadian National Railway Co., 2012 ONCA 445, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781, Cloud v. Canada (Attorney General) (2004), 73 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), Hunt v. Carey Canada Inc., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 959, PMC York Properties Inc. v. Siudak, 2022 ONCA 635

Facts:

The appellant brought a class action against the respondent ("Amazon"), arguing that the putative class members who deliver goods for Amazon are its employees. The appellant alleges that Amazon was liable to the class for breach of employment contracts, breach of duties of good faith, unjust enrichment, negligence, and a declaration that any agreement excluding the putative class members from the employment law statutes is void and unenforceable.

The motion judge characterized the class in two parts: one involving the delivery partners ("DPs"), who were employed directly by Amazon, and the other involving driver associates ("DAs") who were employed by third-party delivery service partner companies ("DSPs"). DSPs and its DAs deliver Amazon packages through either Amazon's DSP 1.0 program or its DSP 2.0 program. Each program is required to include certain terms in its...