Court Of Appeal Summaries (January 12 ' 16, 2026)

• Published date: 21 January 2026
• 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 from January 12, 2026 to January 16, 2026.

In Najm v Najm, the Court upheld an order denying a husband's claim to exclude from his net family property the value of shares purportedly inherited from his late father. The trial court made no error in finding that the husband had not proven that his father was the source of the funds used to subscribe for those shares and that the husband had arranged his affairs to shield assets from potential equalization. On appeal, the Court rejected arguments that the trial judge improperly expanded the Family Law Act s. 4(2) exclusion test or relied on speculation and held that documents and testimony purportedly establishing the requisite link between the share subscription and the father were belated and unconvincing.

Other topics covered this week included dispensing with the requirement to file transcripts for the appeal and stay pending appeal in a family law matter, extension of time to appeal and stay pending appeal from an approval and vesting order in a receivership, extension of time to perfect an appeal and stay pending appeal from an order for partition and sale and declaring ownership in a property.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Najm v. Najm, 2026 ONCA 13

Keywords: Family Law, Property, Equalization of Net Family Property, Excluded Property, Gifts, Fraudulent Conveyances, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Burden of Proof, Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, ss. 4(2), 4(2)(1), 4(3), Najm v. Najm, 2017 ONSC 4777, Cronier v. Cusack, 2023 ONCA 178, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518

Khorramrooz v. Baradar, 2026 ONCA 24

Keywords: Family Law, Support, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Perfection, Transcripts, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.05(5), 61.09(3-4), 61.13(1)(a), 61.13(3.1), 63.01(1), 63.02(1), 72.03(2)(c), Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, s. 11.9.1., Abu-Saud v. Abu-Saud, 2020 ONCA 314, De Longte v. De Longte, 2025 ONCA 30, Carvalho Estate v. Verma, 2024 ONCA 222, D.B.S. v. S.R.G., 2006 SCC 37

Toronto-Dominion Bank v. 1871 Berkeley Events Inc., 2026 ONCA 22

Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Receiverships, Civil Procedure, Stay Pending Appeal, Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, C.R.C. c. 368 ("BIA Rules"), r. 31(1), Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 63.02(1)(b), r. 63.02(2), Carpenter v. Carpenter, 2016 ONCA 313, Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp. (1991), 4 O.R. (3d) 1, Shaver-Kudell Manufacturing Inc. v. Knight Manufacturing Inc., 2021 ONCA 202, Marshallzehr Group Inc. v. La Pue International Inc., 2025 ONCA 124, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Business Development Bank of Canada v. Pine Tree Resorts Inc., 2013 ONCA 282

Louie v. Han, 2026 ONCA 25

Keywords: Real Property, Resulting Trust, Partition and Sale, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, References, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 6.1(1)(b) and 19(1)(b), Practice Direction Concerning Civil Appeals at the Court of Appeal for Ontario (March 1, 2017), s. 11.3.1, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 51, 61.09, 63.01(1) and 63.02(1)(b), Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Rizzi v. Mavros, 2007 ONCA 350, 2650971 Ontario Inc. v. Shameti, 2021 ONCA 433, 2650971 Ontario Inc. v. Shameti, 2022 ONCA 62, Issai v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, UD Trading Group Holding PTE. Limited v. TransAsia Private Capital Limited, 2021 ONCA 279, Picavet v. Clute, 2012 ONCA 441, Fias v. Souto, 2015 ONSC 4140, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997),33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.), RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Fontaine v. Attorney General of Canada, 2020 CanLII 64770 (Ont. C.A.), Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 ONCA 749, Temagami (Municipality) v. Temagami Barge Limited, 2024 ONCA 859, Billimoria v. Mistry, 2022 ONCA 276, Webster v. Groszman, 2021 ONCA 55, Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655, Ontario Inc. v. Frezza, 2021 ONCA 822, Kakoutis v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2025 ONCA 715, Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONCA 822

Short Civil Decisions

West Whitby Landowners Group Inc. v. Elexicon Energy Inc., 2026 ONCA 15

Keywords: Administrative Law, Judicial Review, Jurisdiction, Standard of Review, Remedies, Certiorari, Costs

CIVIL DECISIONS

Najm v. Najm, 2026 ONCA 13

[van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.]

Counsel:

K. Maurina and S. Kirby, for the appellant

J. Robinson and C. Heidari, for the respondent

Keywords: Family Law, Property, Equalization of Net Family Property, Excluded Property, Gifts, Fraudulent Conveyances, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Burden of Proof, Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, ss. 4(2), 4(2)(1), 4(3), Najm v. Najm, 2017 ONSC 4777, Cronier v. Cusack, 2023 ONCA 178, Hickey v. Hickey, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 518

facts:

The parties SAN and FN, husband and wife respectively, married in Pakistan in 1985. They relocated to Ontario in 2000. Around March 2005, the couple experienced marital issues, and in October 2005, SAN signed a Talaq Nama Islamic divorce decree, of no legal effect in Canada. Shortly thereafter, SAN's father swore a declaration in Pakistan respecting gifts he and SAN's late mother had given to SAN. The declaration stated that the gifts were for SAN's sole benefit and were not to become part of SAN's net family property. Subsequently SAN changed his will to remove FN as a beneficiary.

In March 2006, SAN, his brother, and their father incorporated an Ontario real estate holding company, Safina Investments Inc. ("Safina"), operated by SAN and his brother, since SAN's father was ill and in Pakistan. SAN's father was issued 313 common shares in Safina and transferred 10 shares each to SAN and his brother. In July 2006, SAN's father signed an affidavit in Ontario affirming the truth of his earlier gift declaration and made a will dividing his estate equally between his two sons. A term in the will precluded the application of Family Law Act ("FLA") equalization rules to income and value increases in the inherited property. Upon his father's death in July 2011, SAN received half of his father's Safina shares valued at $530,000.

During a 12-day trial, SAN and FN each sought exclusions from their net family property pursuant to FLA s. 4(2). Some exclusions were accepted and some denied for each party. The...