Granted
Constitutional Law: Crown Liability
Ontario Place Protectors v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183 (41805)
Ontario Place is an urban park on the Lake Ontario waterfront. To facilitate its redevelopment, the Ontario Legislature passed the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act, 2023. The Act exempts Ontario Place from regulation under the Environmental Assessment Act, and the Ontario Heritage Act, and from the City of Toronto’s authority to regulate noise. The Act also extinguishes causes of action and related remedies against the Crown and its agents that might otherwise arise out of the redevelopment of Ontario Place. However, the Act preserves the ability to bring applications for J.R. Ontario Place Protectors brought an application to challenge the constitutionality of the Act on the basis that: (i) the Act insulates state action from judicial scrutiny and thereby violates s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867; and (ii) the exemptions from environmental and heritage legislation and from municipal noise regulations constitute a breach of public trust. The application judge dismissed the application. The Ont. C.A. dismissed the Applicant’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is granted with costs in the cause.”
Dismissed
Administrative Law: Procedure
Lengyel v. Ontario Assessment Review Board, et al., 2025 ONCA 23 (41662)
The Applicant, Gabriella Lengyel, was the owner of a property located in the City of Toronto (the Respondent “City”). In 2022, Ms. Lengyel submitted applications to the Ontario Assessment Review Board (the Respondent “Board”), to cancel, reduce, or refund certain municipal property tax amounts for 2015 and 2017. The Board dismissed both applications. Ms. Lengyel then brought an application for J.R. of the decision. The Divisional Court dismissed Ms. Lengyel’s application for J.R. of the Board’s decision. Ms. Lengyel attempted to seek leave to appeal the Divisional Court judgment before the Ont. C.A. but required an extension of time to do so. A single judge of the Ont. C.A. dismissed her motion for an extension of time, and her subsequent request for an extension of time to review that order was also dismissed. A different judge of the Ont. C.A. then granted her request for an extension of time to review the immediately preceding order, and directed a panel of the Ont. C.A. hear her motion for leave to appeal as soon as possible. A unanimous panel of the Ont. C.A. dismissed the motion for leave to appeal. “The motion to file a lengthy memorandum of argument is granted. The motion to file a lengthy reply is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Charter: Roadside Breath Demand
Wright v. R., et al., 2025 SKCA 52 (41942)
Mr. Wright stopped at a lawful police check stop while driving a vehicle. A police officer demanded that he provide a breath sample into an approved screening device. Mr. Wright failed the roadside test, was arrested, failed a breathalyser test and was charged for operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood. Mr. Wright challenged the constitutionality of s. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code¸ the provision that authorised the demand to perform a roadside screening test. Bauer P.C.J. dismissed the motion and convicted Mr. Wright. The Court of King’s Bench dismissed a summary conviction appeal. A majority of the Sask. C.A. dismissed an appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Procedure: Bankruptcy Orders
Sun v. MNP Ltd. in its capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver of AmerCan Corporation, et al., 2025 ONCA (41993)
In April 2024, Respondent MNP Ltd. was appointed by the court as receiver of all the assets, undertakings, and properties of AmerCan Corporation. Following its appointment as receiver, MNP sought court orders to, among other things: (i) declare a trust agreement in Applicant Xiaojing Jessica Sun’s favour to be void and invalid; and (ii) declare certain transfers of property from AmerCan to Ms. Sun to be void and invalid. The motion judge set aside the trust agreement and the property transfers. Ms. Sun’s appeal was declared to be a nullity. “The motion for a stay of execution is dismissed. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Civil Procedure: Pleadings
Fraser v. Saskatchewan (Advanced Education), 2025 SKCA 63 (41931)
Applicant Steve Fraser commenced a claim in the Court of King’s Bench for Saskatchewan. Two of the named defendants — the Respondents, Government of Saskatchewan (Ministry of Advanced Education) and Colleen Young — brought an application to have the claim dismissed as against them, on the ground that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The application was granted. The chambers judge struck the claim in its entirety as against the Respondents. The Sask. C.A. dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Procedure: Permanent Injunction for Defamation
Esfahani v. 9387-9062 Québec Inc., et al., 2025 QCCA 768 (41893)
The Applicant, Roya Esfahani, went to a Second Cup coffee shop operated by the Respondent 9387 9062 Québec Inc., the president and majority shareholder of which is the Respondent Milad Koliana, and had an unpleasant experience there. Following that visit, she posted about thirty negative reviews of the coffee shop on the Internet, under several different names and using various email addresses. The Applicant was given notice to cease her defamatory comments. Because she continued, the Respondents initiated injunction proceedings. A first provisional interlocutory injunction order was made, but the Applicant violated it. The order was then renewed in the form of a safeguard order until the hearing on the interlocutory injunction. An interlocutory injunction was then issued. Monast J. of the Québec Superior Court subsequently allowed the Respondents’ application for a permanent injunction and damages. She ordered the Applicant to pay $20K in moral and punitive damages as well as to reimburse a portion of the legal fees, in the amount of $65K. The Applicant appealed the judgment, while the Respondents sought the dismissal of that appeal. The Qué. C.A. allowed the motion to dismiss the appeal in part and dismissed the appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Civil Procedure: Removing Pleadings
Mahjabin v. R., 2025 FCA unreported (41917)
Applicant Mehroz Mahjabin commenced an action in Federal Court. Ms. Mahjabin’s statement of claim was ordered to be removed from the court record pursuant to Rule 74 of the Federal Courts Rules. The Fed. C.A. also ordered, pursuant to Rule 74, that the notice of appeal was to be removed from its record. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Criminal Law: Evidence
Dhiblawe v. R., 2025 ABCA 155 (41911)
After a trial by judge alone, Mr. Dhiblawe was convicted of second degree murder and possession of a firearm while prohibited by order. Mr. Dhiblawe appealed his second degree murder conviction on two grounds. First, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting the preliminary inquiry evidence of a witness under the principled exception to the rule against hearsay, but not admitting an earlier videotaped statement made by that same witness to the police. Second, he argued the trial judge erred in his application of R. v. Villaroman 2016 SCC 33, improperly dismissing the reasonable alternative that the shooting was an accident. Mr. Dhiblawe said that properly applying the burden of proof and considering the evidence and absence of evidence in the trial, no trier of fact, acting judicially, could have convicted him of murder. His appeal was dismissed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the response is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Criminal Law: Unreasonable Verdict
Webb v. R., 2023 QCCA 1130 (41940)
The trial of Ms. Webb, charged with second degree murder, took place before a jury. The evidence was circumstantial. Several witnesses were heard and outlined the facts as follows: Ms. Webb went to a location where several people were gathered in an apartment; a fight broke out; Ms. Webb approached one of the people fighting and stabbed him in the abdomen multiple times; she was seen with a knife in the moments following the brawl; and one witness reported she said: [translation] “I stabbed him for you!”. During the hours that followed, she washed herself and threw out the clothes she was wearing. She admitted later she had gotten rid of the knife, saying to a fellow inmate: [translation] “They’ll never find it; it’s well hidden”. The victim died the same day as a result of the stab wounds. Ms. Webb raised a hybrid defence of involuntary act and self-defence. The trial judge dismissed a preliminary motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the grounds the circumstantial evidence was sufficient for a reasonable jury, having been properly instructed in law, to find Ms. Webb guilty. The jury convicted Ms. Webb of second degree murder. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal. In its view, the trial judge did not commit a reviewable error by dismissing the motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Furthermore, it found the review and reassessment of the evidence justified finding the verdict of guilty to a charge of second degree murder was not unreasonable. It was a verdict that a properly instructed jury acting judicially could render, given the evidence presented to it. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Family Law: Child Protection
K.S.M. v. Minister of Opportunities and Social Development, Z.M., et al., 2025 NSCA 61 (42037)
There is a publication ban in this case. K.S.M.’s three children were placed in the permanent care and custody of the Minister of Opportunities and Social Development due to concerns under the Children and Family Services Act. The children were placed with relatives and K.S.M. appealed the decision, alleging errors by the trial judge, discrimination, and bias and sought to have her children returned to her care. The appeal was dismissed. At issue is whether child protection services unlawfully apprehended the Applicant’s children without proper investigation, evidence or legal justification and whether there was discrimination. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Property Law: Condominiums
Lee, et al. v. York Region Standard Condominium Corporation no. 972, 2025 ONCA 385 (41864)
The underlying dispute concerned the discovery of defective plumbing in a condominium and the remedial efforts undertaken by the Respondent condo corporation, which the Applicant owners opposed. Litigation ensued, and the condo corporation prevailed at every stage, resulting in legal expenditures by the condo corporation and costs awards at the Superior Court and C.A. The condo corporation registered a lien on title to the unit in respect of these expenses. The Superior Court granted judgment to the condo corporation and ordered the owners to deliver possession of their unit to the condo corporation, which had leave to issue a writ of possession (unless the owners discharged the lien within 60 days). The total value of the lien to be realized on any sale, or the cost to the owners to discharge the lien, was fixed at $25,084.39. The Ont. C.A. held there was no basis to interfere with the trial judge’s decision on the validity or enforceability of the lien, but held there was an error in the trial judge’s calculation of the lien, and the value was reduced by $4,589.35. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Property Law: Right of Way
Majarov, et al. v. Briginshaw, et al., 2025 QCCA 534 (41856)
The Bringinshaws sought access to their cottage property via a right of way on an access road on property owned by the Marajovs. The Marajovs denied the right of way existed. The Bringinshaws were granted provisional and interlocutory relief by the Superior Court and the Majarovs were ordered to allow them unimpeded access to the road. The trial judge rendered the order permanent, declaring that the Majarovs’ lot was encumbered by a right of way in favour of the Bringinshaws’ lot, as the evidence clearly demonstrated there was a servitude by destination of the owner and the Majarovs were aware of it and had recognized it on several occasions. The court also awarded non-pecuniary damages against the Majarovs for their behaviour. The Qué. C.A. dismissed the appeal and ruled it could not interfere with the trial judge’s findings of fact and the Majarovs failed to show any error in law. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Public International Law: Search & Seizure
PacNet Services Ltd. v. Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States of America, 2025 BCCA 276 (41989)
PacNet Services Ltd. was an international payment processing service provider headquartered in British Columbia. PacNet and DeepCove Laboratories Inc., the corporation which held PacNet’s proprietary software, are alleged to have processed payments induced by fraudulent mass-mailed solicitations. Authorities in the United States initiated a criminal investigation into this mailing scheme. In August 2016, Canada’s Minister of Justice approved a request made by the United States pursuant to the Treaty Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters to search the offices of PacNet and DeepCove in Vancouver and to deliver the results to the United States. Following an application by the Attorney General of Canada in September 2016, search warrants for the two companies’ offices were authorized. The subsequent searches revealed PacNet stored additional business records at a storage facility operated by Butler Box & Storage Inc. In October 2016, the Attorney General made further applications for an evidence-gathering order requiring Butler to produce the records stored by PacNet at its facility and for a warrant authorizing a search of the boxes of records obtained from the Butler facility. Both applications were granted. In October 2024, the two companies filed an application seeking to set aside the October 2016 orders authorizing the gathering and search of PacNet’s boxes stored at the Butler facility. In the application, they opposed the sending of any materials from those boxes to the United States. Later in October 2024, PacNet filed a further application for disclosure of documents about the Minister’s approval of the search for and seizure of the materials stored at the Butler facility. In February 2025, a judge dismissed PacNet’s application for disclosure and, pursuant to ss. 15 and 20 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, granted an application by the Attorney General for a sending order authorizing the transmittal of the materials seized from the Butler facility to the United States. PacNet sought to appeal this decision to the B.C.C.A., which dismissed the application for leave to appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”
Tax Law: Procedure
Gagné, et al. v. Agence du revenu du Québec, 2025 QCCA 590 (41892)
The Applicant, Mr. Gagné, and his company are appealing assessments issued by Revenu Québec for 1996 to 2002. After years of adjournments and delays, the matters should have been set down for trial and judgment in 2021, yet that deadline was not met. Later, in 2022, Mr. Gagné filed applications seeking relief from the consequences of missing the 2021 deadline. The Court of Québec dismissed Mr. Gagné’s applications, finding he had not demonstrated an impossibility to act within the prescribed timelines. Concluding no reviewable error had been made, the Qué. C.A. dismissed Mr. Gagné’s appeal. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”
Tax Law: Provincial Foreign Buyer’s Tax
1084204 B.C. Ltd v. British Columbia, 2025 BCCA 110 (41839)
The Applicant, 1084204 B.C. Ltd. (“108”) appealed a decision of the Deputy Minister of Finance confirming 108’s liability for payment of an additional transfer tax (“ATT”) on property under the B.C. Property Transfer Tax Act(“PTTA”). The ATT applies when the transferee is a “foreign entity”, a “taxable trustee”, or both, as per 2.02(2)(b). 108 was controlled by Hans Oeri. Mr. Oeri was neither a Canadian citizen nor a permanent resident of Canada on the date the property transfer was registered. As such, 108 was found to be a “foreign entity” within the meaning of the PTTA. The chambers judge found that 108 was not liable for ATT; however, the B.C.C.A. allowed the Province’s appeal and reinstated the ATT. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed with costs.”