In Marmora and Lake (Municipality) v. Ontario, the Court denied leave to appeal a decision related to road maintenance activities that allegedly violated the Endangered Species Act and upheld the application judge’s conclusion that the issues were not ripe for adjudication. The Municipality had sought broad declaratory relief, but the Court agreed that the ongoing ESA prosecution was the appropriate forum for resolving these disputes. The Court found no error in the lower court’s reasoning or its rejection of the Municipality’s requests for temporary relief.
In Brant Securities Limited v. Goss, the Court dismissed an appeal regarding the enforceability of a promissory note whose terms were amended several years after the initial note was signed. The Court noted that consideration can come in a variety of forms and should not be limited to monetary or economic value.
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Marmora and Lake (Municipality) v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 10
Keywords: Municipal Law, Highway Maintenance, Environmental Law, Endangered Species, Provincial Offences, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Remedies, Declarations, Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6, s. 17(1), General, O. Reg. 242/08, s. 8(1), Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 44, Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2024 ONCA 174, Popack v. Lipszyc, 2016 ONCA 135, Schaeffer v. Wood, 2011 ONCA 716, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 460 (Gen. Div.), Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, Welton v. United Lands Corporation Limited, 2020 ONCA 322, R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, Lorne M. Sossin J.A., Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2012)
Brant Securities Limited v. Goss, 2025 ONCA 8
Keywords: Appeals, Consideration, Loans, Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, Loranger v. Haines, [1921] 64 D.L.R. 364 (Ont. C.A.), Techform Products Ltd. v. Wolda (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), Lancia v. Park Dentistry, 2018 ONSC 751, Giacomodonato v PearTree Securities Inc., 2023 ONSC 3197, Richcraft Homes Ltd. v. Urbandale Corporation, 2016 ONCA 622, Hobbs v. TDI Canada Ltd., [2004] 192 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.)
Short Civil Decisions
Eastwood Home Inc. v. Procopio, 2025 ONCA 11
Keywords: Contracts, Construction, Agency, Fraud, C.P. Ships v. Les Industries Lyon Corduroys Ltée, [1983] 1 FC 736, Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77
CIVIL DECISIONS
Marmora and Lake (Municipality) v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 10
[George, Favreau and Gomery JJ.A.]
Counsel:
M. K. Kinch and J. Khoury-Hanna, for the appellant
M. J. Sims and S. Levine-Poch, for the respondent
Keywords: Municipal Law, Highway Maintenance, Environmental Law, Endangered Species, Provincial Offences, Civil Procedure, Jurisdiction, Remedies, Declarations, Endangered Species Act, 2007, S.O. 2007, c. 6, s. 17(1), General, O. Reg. 242/08, s. 8(1), Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 44, Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Canadian National Railway Company, 2024 ONCA 174, Popack v. Lipszyc, 2016 ONCA 135, Schaeffer v. Wood, 2011 ONCA 716, Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General) (1996), 28 O.R. (3d) 460 (Gen. Div.), Halifax (Regional Municipality) v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), 2012 SCC 10, Welton v. United Lands Corporation Limited, 2020 ONCA 322, R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, Lorne M. Sossin J.A., Boundaries of Judicial Review: The Law of Justiciability in Canada, 2nd ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2012)
facts:
In 2022, the Municipality was charged with two contraventions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerning road maintenance activities that allegedly affected the mottled duskywing butterfly. The application judge dismissed the Municipality’s application for certain declarations. First, the Municipality had asked for a declaration that it is within every Ontario municipality’s sole jurisdiction to determine what is reasonable in performing their statutory maintenance and repair duties to keep highways or bridges in an acceptable state of repair under the Municipal Act. Second, it also asked for a declaration that where a municipality makes such a determination, it is not required to obtain a permit, comply with an order or be subject to the offence provisions or other enforcement provisions of the ESA and its regulations. The application judge found that the issues raised by the Municipality were not ripe for declaratory relief.
issues:
- Did the application judge err in finding that the issues raised in the application were not ripe for adjudication?
- Did the application judge err in making inconsistent findings with respect to the ongoing ESA prosecution?
- Did the application judge err in failing to address the Municipality’s argument that it has “jurisdictional independence” to determine reasonable standards for road maintenance?
- Did the application judge err in failing to grant a temporary order dispensing with the need for the Municipality to comply with the ESA until it has time to seek a permit?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
- No.
The application judge correctly held that the broad declaratory relief sought by the Municipality should not be granted unless the issues raised were justiciable. The Court found that the Municipality could have sought a permit under the ESA to maintain its highways as required by the Municipal Act, and there was no evidence to support its claim that obtaining a permit was unmanageable. While the Municipality argued that its limited resources made seeking a permit onerous, these concerns were found to be speculative and untested.
The Court also agreed with the application judge’s distinguishing of Schaeffer v. Wood, noting that the issues in the case at bar were more complex and involved broader factual considerations, such as the environmental impacts of road maintenance. Resolving these issues through declaratory relief was not efficient or appropriate given the availability of other procedural remedies.
2. No.
The Court upheld the application judge’s finding that the Municipality’s application improperly sought to bypass the quasi-criminal ESA prosecution by raising issues that should be decided by the Ontario Court of Justice. The Court agreed that the prosecution was the proper forum to address whether the Municipality contravened the ESA, where it could present its interpretive arguments with a full evidentiary record.
The Court also rejected the Municipality’s reliance on Law Society of Upper Canada v. Canada (Attorney General), noting that the principles set out in that decision may no longer apply following the Supreme Court’s guidance on judicial restraint in preempting administrative processes. Additionally, the Ontario Court of Justice clearly had jurisdiction over the ESA prosecution, making that case distinguishable from this matter. The Court found no error in the application judge’s reasoning and dismissed this ground of appeal.
3. No.
The application judge was not obliged to address the Municipality’s argument that it alone has the jurisdictional competence to determine whether its road maintenance efforts are “reasonable” under the Municipal Act. The Court emphasized that judges are not required to address every argument raised by a litigant. The Court also rejected the notion that the Municipality could independently determine what is reasonable for maintaining its roadways and infrastructure without being subject to applicable legal standards, which lacked any legal authority.
4. No.
The Court held that the application judge was correct in rejecting the Municipality’s request for temporary declaratory relief exempting it from compliance with the ESA while it sought a permit for road maintenance. The Court found that the Municipality’s failure to apply for a permit made it impossible to grant such relief, as it lacked any evidentiary foundation to justify the need for temporary measures due to an inability to secure reasonable accommodation for its road maintenance obligations or that it would not receive a permit within a reasonable time frame.
Brant Securities Limited v. Goss, 2025 ONCA 8
[Sossin, Madsen and Pomerance JJ.A.]
Counsel:
K. A. Dekker and A. Sinojmeri, for the appellant
J. Renihan, for the respondent
Keywords: Appeals, Consideration, Loans, Employment Standards Act, 2000, S.O. 2000, c. 41, Loranger v. Haines, [1921] 64 D.L.R. 364 (Ont. C.A.), Techform Products Ltd. v. Wolda (2001), 56 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), Lancia v. Park Dentistry, 2018 ONSC 751, Giacomodonato v PearTree Securities Inc., 2023 ONSC 3197, Richcraft Homes Ltd. v. Urbandale Corporation, 2016 ONCA 622, Hobbs v. TDI Canada Ltd., [2004] 192 O.A.C. 141 (C.A.)
facts:
The appellant received a $1.6 million interest-free loan as part of his 2013 employment agreement with Aston Hill Securities (AHS). Loan repayment was tied to meeting revenue benchmarks, which provided him with annual bonuses effectively canceling the payments. Despite meeting benchmarks in 2014 and 2015, AHS failed to recognize and award these bonuses.
In 2016, the loan terms were revised under an amended promissory note following AHS’s amalgamation with Brant, extending repayment terms and addressing the unpaid bonuses. This new note clarified that the original loan should have been with AHF, acknowledged the unpaid 2014 and 2015 bonuses, and extended the repayment term by two years. Then, in 2021, after the appellant’s termination, Brant demanded repayment of the remaining loan balance. The appellant refused, arguing the note was unenforceable and counterclaimed for unpaid amounts. The motion judge found the note enforceable and the appellant’s claims for the unpaid bonuses statute-barred. The appellant appealed, challenging the enforceability of the amended note.
issues:
Did the motion judge err in finding the amended note to be enforceable?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
No. The Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the Amended Note was supported by valid consideration. It agreed that consideration need not be monetary or of equivalent economic value and can include clarifying contractual terms to avoid disputes. The Court emphasized that the negotiation of the Amended Note provided the appellant with three distinct benefits: first, clarification of the contractual relationship; second, a deferral of taxes on the missed bonuses; and third, an extension of the loan’s interest-free status. The Court rejected the appellant’s reference to Hobbs v. TDI Canada Ltd., stating there was no evidence of vulnerability or a non-negotiable agreement here. Unlike Hobbs, the Amended Note in this case arose from negotiations and reflected mutual agreement. Additionally, the Court noted that the Amended Note explicitly resolved any claims to the unpaid bonuses for 2014 and 2015 and waived set-off rights.
SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS
Eastwood Home Inc. v. Procopio, 2025 ONCA 11
[Roberts, Miller and Pomerance JJ.A.]
Counsel:
M. Reinhart, for the appellants
M. J. Armstrong, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Construction, Agency, Fraud, C.P. Ships v. Les Industries Lyon Corduroys Ltée, [1983] 1 FC 736, Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77
The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.
Any article or other information or content expressed or made available in this Section is that of the respective author(s) and not of the OBA.