Articles 2022

Following are summaries of last week’s civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Topics covered this week included rescission of a settlement agreement in an historical institutional sexual abuse case and stay pending an appeal from a default judgment for possession to prevent a power of sale.

Following are summaries of the four substantive civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released last week. In 4352238 Canada Inc. v. SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the Court ordered the appeal to be heard in writing over the objection of one of the parties, finding there was nothing in the Courts of Justice Act or the Rules of Civil Procedure that prevented the Court from doing so in these extraordinary times.

Please find our summaries of last week’s civil decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Case comment on Leroux v. Ontario, 2020 ONSC 1994, a recent reconsideration decision in an ongoing class action against the provincial government.

A judicial system that cannot hear cases and deliver fair, decisive, and timely results weakens social bonds and can sow distrust and disfavour of the government. What can lawyers and litigants do to help?

There were five substantive civil decisions released by the Court of Appeal for Ontario this week.

There was only one substantive civil decision released by the Court of Appeal this week - 1842752 Ontario Inc. v Fortress Wismer 3-2001 Ltd.

Please find below our summaries of this past week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong, the Court issued its first decision regarding COVID-19. The appellant requested an adjournment of an appeal because in-person hearings are suspended. Paciocco J. denied the request, holding that the inevitable backlog of appeals should not be aggravated by adjourning matters that can be fairly adjudicated in writing.

Curiously, there was only one substantive civil decision of the Court of Appeal this week. In Nolet v Fischer, the Court of Appeal applied the principle of statutory interpretation expressio unius est exclusio alternius (to express one thing is to exclude another) in determining that the Occupiers’ Liability Act does not preclude one occupier of a premises from having a duty of care towards another occupier of the same premises.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.