Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 21-25, 2025. It was a light week.
In Heegsma v. Hamilton (City), the applicants’ application to have certain municipal bylaws restricting where homeless people could shelter was dismissed. Prior to that final order, the court had struck certain evidence upon which the applicants had sought to rely. The applicants did not seek leave to appeal those interlocutory orders to the Divisional Court and the application was then heard and dismissed. On appeal, the applicants sought to appeal not only the final order, but the prior interlocutory orders that had struck the evidence. The City moved to strike the grounds of appeal related to the interlocutory orders. The Court dismissed that motion, finding that it could hear those interlocutory appeals under s. 6(2) of the Courts of Justice Act. In addition, the Court determined that the applicants’ challenge to the interlocutory orders was not res judicata or an abuse of process because the excluded medical evidence and homelessness statistics were linked to the merits of the final order and the Court would have inevitably granted leave to appeal the interlocutory orders had leave been sought.
In 2724582 Ontario Inc. v. Gold, the respondent entered into a series of mortgage transactions with the appellants, one of whom was a realtor, with the other appellants being related to the realtor (without the borrower being made aware of those relationships). The realtor had his client sign a Release that barred complaints to RECO, and the respondent later challenged its enforceability. The Court upheld the motion judge’s finding that the Release was void and unenforceable due to both an illegal provision (prohibiting regulatory complaints) and unconscionability.
In Canadian Tire Corporation, Limited v. Eaton Equipment Ltd., the moving party sought a Norwich order to obtain further disclosure from the responding party as well as its insurers regarding a finding of fraud and judgment that was under appeal. The Court dismissed the motion, holding, among other things, that Norwich orders are an equitable, discretionary remedy intended for pre-trial proceedings, and were not available at the appellate stage.
Blaney McMurtry LLP 416.593.2953