Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

A powerful reminder for anyone sharing vehicle ownership. Consent from one owner can create liability for all. In Nowakowski v Campbell, 2025 ONCA 762, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision that a co-owner of a motor vehicle can be held liable for loss or damage caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle, even if they did not consent to a non-owner using it, so long as another co-owner did provide that consent.

Recent amendments to the Education Act require school boards to work with local police services to provide access to schools prescribed circumstances. The Ministry of Education has proposed new regulations that detail the circumstances where police must be given access to participate in school board programming and to implement school resource officer programs. This article provides an overview of the Ministry’s proposal.

Adjudication under the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, has become an established mechanism for resolving payment and contract disputes, but recent legislative and regulatory changes have reshaped how it intersects with lien and trust remedies. Practitioners must now navigate a more nuanced landscape, weighing not only the timing and scope of adjudication but also whether it should complement or replace traditional lien proceedings. Decisions about pursuing adjudication, liens, or a combination of both require careful consideration of enforcement options, procedural efficiency, and cost, particularly where multiple invoices or complex disputes arise. This article explores the evolving framework, recent case law, and strategic considerations for practitioners for selecting the most effective pathway to protect client interests and maximize recovery.

To better understand why members of the OBA Child and Youth Law Section do what they do, I sat down with some section executive members to hear what brought them to child and youth law and why they volunteer with the Section.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 2, 2026.

The year 2025 proved to be a defining one for human rights adjudication in Ontario. Significant judicial review decisions from the Divisional Court, notable findings of sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination, important rulings on pregnancy-related protections, and major procedural reforms have reshaped the landscape for practitioners and self-represented applicants alike. This article examines the key decisions and developments, with an eye toward what they mean for those navigating the system in 2026 and beyond.

The importance of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be overstated; predating the magna carta itself, it has been described by Adam Smith as the “great security against suppression," by William Blackstone as the “great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement," and by many more as the “Great Writ of Liberty." Habeas corpus requires a public authority detaining a person to bring them before a court to justify the legality of their detention; if the detention is found to be unlawful, the court must order their release. Expanding on the law of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court in Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 (“Dorsey”), found that a decision to deny an inmate a lower security classification can trigger the inmate’s habeas corpus rights.

In their letter to the legal profession, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police notes that orders under section 36(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act are meant to be “exceptional, time-limited remedies." The Association goes on to say that “police enforcement should be used sparingly.” Moreover, “recurring forced police apprehensions are not in the best interests of the child and should never become a long-term fixture in a child’s life to manage the parents’ behaviour."

A candid snapshot of a new lawyer’s first days in practice. An honest account of being thrown into the deep end—and discovering that uncertainty is the true starting point of legal practice.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of February 17, 2026.

A fundamental shift away from traditional discovery has been brewing in this province via the Ontario Civil Rules Review. The latest proposal, released on December 15, 2025, suggests a transformation of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Acceptance Speech of Justin Nasseri, inaugural OBA Civil Litigation Emerging Leader Award winner, with introduction by OBA Civil Litigation Executive Chair, Adil Abdulla

On January 30, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Responsible Plastic Use Coalition, 2026 FCA 17, reshaping the national conversation on plastics regulation and validating the federal government’s authority to list Plastic Manufactured Items as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It has been nearly a decade since a province has enacted franchise legislation in Canada, but Saskatchewan is set to change that. Its new The Franchise Disclosure Act, coming into force on June 30, 2026, and its accompanying regulations brings the province into the regulated fold, introducing statutory disclosure requirements for franchisors operating in Saskatchewan. While the regime largely mirrors the models found in other provinces, it introduces several distinctive elements that franchisors need to understand, changes that close a longstanding regulatory gap and create new national compliance considerations that franchisors should begin planning for now.

In two recent decisions, the Ontario Land Tribunal confirmed that the individual and fact-specific context of an application factors heavily on the reasonableness of a condition requiring parkland dedication, or cash in lieu (“CIL”). These rulings make clear that parkland dedication is not a generalized revenue tool for municipalities and is not intended to be imposed on every proposal that could be classified as development or redevelopment.

In this Q&A, Business Law Section Chair Avram Musafija talks about the challenges and most fulfilling aspects of his work, offers his best advice and lessons learned, and shares what excites him most about a busy year for the Section Executive. 

As of January 26, 2026, trial dates at the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto can no longer be scheduled by email. There are now three methods to set dates at OCJ-T: 1) at a Virtual Counter via Zoom (no appointment needed). 2) at the physical counter located at 10 Armoury Street (no appointment needed), and 3) via appointment through a Trial Scheduling Meeting.

A brief profile of Mel Anderson, SAGDA's outgoing Chair for 2024-2025.

The concept of a “substitute decision-maker” is deceptively simple but legally complex. While the role is often conflated with informal caregiving or family decision-making, in law it carries significant fiduciary duties and procedural consequences. Matters are further complicated by inconsistent terminology: the Substitute Decisions Act, the Family Law Rules, and the Rules of Civil Procedure each frame incapacity and representation in slightly different ways. For practitioners, this patchwork can create pitfalls when advising clients, drafting materials, or litigating issues involving incapable parties.