Court Of Appeal Summaries (February 2 ' 6, 2026)
| Published date | 13 February 2026 |
| Subject Matter | Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration, Court Procedure, Trials & Appeals & Compensation |
| 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 February 2, 2026.
Continue Reading
The appeals in Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Attorney General) and Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), were companion cases and obliged the Court to address, for the first time, the constitutionality of back-to-work legislation.
In Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Court dismissed the appeal and held that the back to work legislation of Bill 178 ended a legal strike in a manner that limited OPSEU members' section 2(d) Charter right to Freedom of Association. However, it also found that Ontario demonstrably justified the limit under section 1 of the Charter. The Court accepted the pressing objective of resuming classroom instruction to mitigate harm to students justified referring all outstanding issues to neutral interest arbitration as a proportionate and effective substitute for the right to strike.
In the companion case to Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Attorney General), Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's decision not to decide the appeal as moot, as the back to work legislation was spent. In the alternative, the Court found that while s. 2(d) Charter rights were limited, such limits were justified under s. 1.
Alyousef v. Alyousef was an appeal from a decision finding there had been an oral partnership agreement between the parties. The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, subject to further determination by the Court as to the correctness of the damages ordered by the trial judge, following further submissions to be made by the parties.
In Bahauddin v. New Lahore Tikka House Inc. (Lahore Tikka House), the Court upheld an order requiring a company to honour a garnishment, finding that a registered mortgage from the owner of property to its tenant evidenced a legitimate debt between the judgment debtor tenant and the garnishee landlord.
In Ontario (Education) v. Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education Inc., the Court dismissed the appeal and left in place the Divisional Court's order striking the application, holding that Adler v. Ontario governed and that there was no reasonable prospect of revisiting it under the Bedford/Carter framework. The Court concluded that the application for public funding of Jewish day schools was barred because section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the appellants' evidence did not fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate established in Adler.
In Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd. v. 2011836 Ontario Corp., the Court granted the Receiver's motion and dismissed the Debtor's motion, holding there was no appeal as of right under s. 193(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
In Powell v. Ledroit Sabo Litigation, the Court allowed a motion to quash and transfer the appeal to the Divisional Court, holding that a final order confirming a solicitor client costs assessment requiring a single payment of $50,000 or less fell within the Divisional Court's jurisdiction.
In Barbosa v. Avdeev, the Court dismissed a motion to stay an eviction and costs order of the Landlord and Tenant Board in a residential tenancy matter made on consent. The Divisional Court refused to grant leave to appeal from that order. The Court confirmed that there is no appeal from a refusal by a lower court to grant leave to appeal, so there was no serious issue on the motion for leave to appeal.
In Seferovic v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc., the Court dismissed an appeal and declared the appellant a vexatious litigant.
Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.
John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 75
Keywords:
Labour and Employment, Collective Bargaining, Right to Strike, Public Law, "Back to Work" Legislation, Constitutional Law, Charter Rights, Freedom of Association, Charter Damages, Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Labour Dispute Resolution Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 21, Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 2(d), 24(1), Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008, S.O. 2008, c. 15, s. 17(2), Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c. 1, Sched. A, Mounted Police Association of Ontario v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1, Meredith v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 2, Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan, 2015 SCC 4, Gordon v. Canada (Attorney General), 2016 ONCA 625, Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 101, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Ontario, 2024 ONCA 407, Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 75, Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, 2024 SCC 13, Health Services and Support - Facilities Subsector Bargaining Assn. v. British Columbia, 2007 SCC 27, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, Carter v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 5, R. v. K.R.J., 2016 SCC 31, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295, Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 33, Bracken v. Niagara Parks Police, 2018 ONCA 261, Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1, Canada (Attorney General) v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., 2007 SCC 30, R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933, Lavigne v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 211, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199, Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569, Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Martin; Nova Scotia (Workers' Compensation Board) v. Laseur, 2003 SCC 54, Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, Workers v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada, 2016 ONSC 418, Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., 2004 SCC 66, RWDSU v. Saskatchewan, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 460, British Columbia Teachers' Federation v. British Columbia, 2015 BCCA 184, Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada, 2024 ONSC 3787, Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 75, Gerard V. La Forest, "The Balancing of Interests under the Charter" (1992) 2 N.J.C.L. 133
Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Canada (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 75
Keywords: Labour and Employment, Collective Bargaining, Right to Strike, Public Law, "Back to Work" Legislation, Constitutional Law, Charter Rights, Freedom of Association, Freedom of Expression, Charter Damages, Civil Procedure, Mootness, Constitution Act, 1982, s. 52, Postal Services Resumption and Continuation Act, S.C. 2018, c. 25, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms s. 1, s. 2(d), s. 2(b), s. 24, Canada Labour Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. L-2, s. 88.1, Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342, [1989] S.C.J. No. 14, Saskatchewan (Environment) v. Métis Nation - Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 4, Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, 2024 SCC 13, Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 74, Canadian Union of Postal Workers v. Her Majesty in Right of Canada, 2016 ONSC 418
Alyousef v. Alyousef, 2026 ONCA 78
Keywords: Contracts, Partnerships, Corporations, Income Tax, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Cross-Appeals, Extension of Time, Pre-judgment Interest, Damages, Costs, Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, s. 161, Partnerships Act, R.S.O. 1990, Ch. P.5, s. 2, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 128, 130(1), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 61.07(1), Alyousef v. Alyousef, 2017 ONSC 2106, Continental Bank Leasing Corp. v. Canada, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 298, Cojocaru v. British Columbia Women's Hospital and Health Centre, 2013 SCC 30, Richardson v. Arsenov, 2022 ONCA 137
Bahauddin v. New Lahore Tikka House Inc., 2026 ONCA 80
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Judgments, Enforcement, Garnishment, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 60.08(16)(17) Turchiaro v. Liorti, [2004] O.J. No. 6289 (S.C.), Turchiaro v. Liorti, 2006 CanLII 8872 (Ont. C.A.), Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company v. Nicol, 2014 ONSC 4748, 20 Toronto Street Holdings Ltd. v. Coffee, Tea or Me Bakeries Inc. (2001), 53 O.R. (3d) 360 (S.C.), International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. S & S Glass and Aluminum (1993) Ltd. (2004), 185 O.A.C. 38 (C.A.), Benzacar v. Terk, 2023 ONCA 773, 6990371 Canada Inc. v. Benzacar, [2024] S.C.C.A. No. 17
Ontario (Education) v. Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education Inc., 2026 ONCA 70
Keywords:In Ontario (Education) v. Grassroots for Affordable Jewish Education Inc., the Court dismissed the appeal and left in place the Divisional Court's order striking the application, holding that Adler v. Ontario governed and that there was no reasonable prospect of revisiting it under the Bedford/Carter framework. The Court concluded that the application for public funding of Jewish day schools was barred because section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and the appellants' evidence did not fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate established in Adler.
Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd. v. 2011836 Ontario Corp., 2026 ONCA 77
Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Receiverships, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Automatic Right of Appeal, Leave to Appeal, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, s. 193, 195, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 15.01(2), North House Foods Ltd.(Re), 2025 ONCA 563, HillmountCapital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364, Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited,2017 ONCA 301, 2403177 Ontario Inc. v. Bending Lake Iron Group Limited, 2016 ONCA 225, Business Development Bank of Canada v. Pine Tree Resorts Inc., 2013 ONCA 282, York...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting