Court Of Appeal Summaries (June 23-27, 2025)

• Published date: 02 July 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 June 23, 2025.

Continue Reading

In Price v. Smith & Wesson, the Court partially allowed the plaintiffs' appeal of a motion judge's decision to not certify their class action. The Court certified their negligence claim against a gun manufacturer as a class proceeding. The plaintiffs sued Smith & Wesson for failing to incorporate authorized user technology that would prevent stolen guns from being fired by criminals. Smith & Wesson had apparently entered into an agreement with the U.S. government to install such technology more than two decades ago, but had not honoured that agreement. The case arose out of the tragic Danforth shooting in Greektown in July 2018. Applying the Anns/Cooper test, the Court confirmed that a duty of care in negligence existed because the manufacturer could foresee its guns being stolen and misused to harm other people. The foreseeability of that injury put the parties in a proximate relationship, and no policy considerations negated the resulting duty of care. The Court upheld the motion judge's dismissal of the plaintiffs' strict liability and public nuisance claims. It determined that it was inappropriate to extend the law of strict liability set out in Rylands v Fletcher (which relates to the use of land) to a product manufacturer where there was no use of land at issue. The Court also determined that while the discharge of a firearm could constitute a public nuisance, the manufacture of one could not, as gun manufacturing was a legal and regulated activity.

In a lengthy decision in Drover v. Canada (Attorney General), the majority of the Court allowed the appeal of the ex-returning officer for Carleton, who sought a declaration that residency requirements in the Canada Elections Act to hold that office were contrary to the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority was of the view that the application judge erred in determining that the choice of residence does not engage in a section 7 liberty interest. In a lengthy dissent, Miller J.A. disagreed with the scope of section 7 and would have dismissed the appeal.

In Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., the Court dismissed a motion to stay a receivership order made under the Securities Act upon application of Ontario Securities Commission.

In Afolabi v. Law Society of Ontario, the LSO learned that its November 2021 bar examinations were compromised. The investigation process identified candidates that intentionally or inadvertently had advance access to a cheating key duplicating answers to the exam. The candidates in question had their exam scores and LSO registration applications voided. Twenty of the applicants applied for judicial review. The Divisional Court found in their favour, however, the Court set aside that decision in April 2025. The twenty candidates' motion to re-open the appeal was dismissed.

In Bongard v. Bullen, the Court dismissed the defendant's appeal from the motion judge's dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion, and further dismissed the self-represented plaintiff's cross-appeal from the motion judge's decision not to award costs. The Court agreed with the motion judge that the expression at issue was not related to a matter of public interest and that the self-represented plaintiff had not established any forgone earnings that would have justified overcoming the presumption that successful plaintiffs do not normally get costs on anti-SLAPP motions.

In Sapusak v Canguard Group Limited, the Court dismissed the appellant's appeal of a motion judge's partial summary judgment which found that the appellant's mortgage was fraudulent and removed it from title.

In Kim v. McIntosh, the appellant father, who lives in Australia, unsuccessfully sought to vary a parenting order. He wanted more time with the children in Australia, and apparently, so did they. The appeal was dismissed. While the children's wishes were a factor, they did not rise to the level of a material change in circumstances and were not determinative of the best interests of the children analysis.

In Bosrock v. Hutchison, the Court dismissed an appeal from an order granting spousal support and costs.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Price v. Smith & Wesson Corporation, 2025 ONCA 452

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Product Liability, Duty of Care, Anns/Cooper Test, Standard of Care, Strict Liability, Public Nuisance, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Certification, Reasonable Cause of Action, Common Issues, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 21, Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, s.5(1), Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 61, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, [1978] A.C. 728 (H.L.), Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79, Bowman v. Ontario, 2022 ONCA 477, Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2013 SCC 57, R. v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42, Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19, Rankin (Rankin's Garage & Sales) v. J.J., 2018 SCC 19, Mustapha v. Culligan of Canada Ltd., 2008 SCC 27, Deloitte & Touche v. Livent Inc. (Receiver of), 2017 SCC 63, Nelson (City) v. Marchi, 2021 SCC 41, Donoghue v. Stevenson, [1932] A.C. 562 (Eng. H.L.), Dixon v. Bell (1816), 105 E.R. 1023 (Eng. K.B.), Dominion Natural Gas Co. v. Collins, [1909] A.C. 640 (P.C.), Martin v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals PLC, 2012 ONSC 2744, Kreutner v. Waterloo Oxford Cooperative Inc. (2000), 50 O.R. (3d) 140 (C.A.), Cantlie v. Canadian Heating Products Inc, 2017 BCSC 286, Nicholson v. John Deere Ltd. (1986), 58 O.R. (2d) 53 (H.C.), Rentway Canada Ltd./Ltée v. Laidlaw Transport Ltd. (1989), 49 C.C.L.T. 150 (Ont. H.C.), Gallant v. Beitz (1983), 42 O.R. (2d) 86 (H.C.), Burr v. Tecumseh Products of Canada Limited, 2023 ONCA 135, Hill v. Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, 2007 SCC 41, Rylands v. Fletcher (1868), L.R. 3 H.L. 330 (U.K.H.L.), Tock v. St. John's (City) Metropolitan Area Board, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1181, Smith v. Inco Limited, 2011 ONCA 628, Daishowa-Marubeni International Ltd. v. Toshiba International Corporation, 2010 ABQB 627, Ryan v. Victoria, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 201, Lilleyman v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 2024 ONCA 606, Hodge v. Neinstein, 2017 ONCA 494, Hyundai Auto Canada Corp. v. Engen, 2023 ABCA 85, Lewis N. Klar, Tort Law, 2nd ed., Scarborough: Carswell, 1996, Philip H. Osborne, The Law of Torts, 4th ed., Toronto: Irwin Law Inc., 2011, Warren K. Winkler et al., The Law of Class Actions in Canada, Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2014

Drover v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 468

Keywords: Elections Law, Constitutional Law, Right to Liberty, Reasonable Limits, Oakes Test, Statutory Interpretation, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2, 5, 7 and 12, Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, ss. 22(4), 24(4), Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44, ss. 1(a), 2(e), Constitution Act, 1867, s. 52(1), Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(1)(a), Elections Modernization Act, S.C. 2018, c. 31, Universal Declaration on Human Rights, G.A. Res. 217 A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Can. T.S. 1976 No. 47, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 213 U.N.T.S. 211, Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44, Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, R. v. MalmoLevine, 2003 SCC 74, Association of Justice Counsel v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 SCC 55, Alberta (Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development) v. Cunningham, 2011 SCC 37, New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46, Gosselin v. Québec (Attorney General), 2002 SCC 84, Quebec (Attorney General) v. 9147-0732 Québec inc., 2020 SCC 32, Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19, Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, Jones v. The Queen, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 284, R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30, B. (R.) v. Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315, Reference re ss. 193 & 195.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1123, Jackson v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 215 O.A.C. 96 (C.A.), Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2012 ONCA 186, R. v. Comeau, 2018 SCC 15, Duggan v. Durham Region Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2020 ONCA 788, R. v. Kirkpatrick, 2022 SCC 33, Canada v. Craig, 2012 SCC 43, Canada (Canadian Human Rights Commission) v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 SCC 31, Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 35, Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Northwest Area) v. G. (D.F.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 925, Canada (Attorney General) v. PHS Community Services Society, 2011 SCC 44, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, Winnipeg Child and Family Services v. K.L.W., 2000 SCC 48, Hunter et al. v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34, Reference re Public Service Employee Relations Act (Alta.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 313, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Skapinker, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357, R. v. Poulin, 2019 SCC 47, R. v. Stillman, 2019 SCC 40, Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47, Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68, Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497, R. v. Kapp, 2008 SCC 41, Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.), Minister of Home Affairs v. Fisher, [1980] A.C. 319 (P.C., Bermuda), Peavine Métis Settlement v. Alberta (Minister of Aboriginal Affairs & Northern Development), 2007 ABQB 517, Doe v....