In Price v. Smith & Wesson, the Court partially allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal of a motion judge’s decision to not certify their class action. The Court certified their negligence claim against a gun manufacturer as a class proceeding. The plaintiffs sued Smith & Wesson for failing to incorporate authorized user technology that would prevent stolen guns from being fired by criminals. Smith & Wesson had apparently entered into an agreement with the U.S. government to install such technology more than two decades ago but had not honoured that agreement. The case arose out of the tragic Danforth shooting in Greektown in July 2018. Applying the Anns/Cooper test, the Court confirmed that a duty of care in negligence existed because the manufacturer could foresee its guns being stolen and misused to harm other people. The foreseeability of that injury put the parties in a proximate relationship, and no policy considerations negated the resulting duty of care. The Court upheld the motion judge’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ strict liability and public nuisance claims. It determined that it was inappropriate to extend the law of strict liability set out in Rylands v Fletcher (which relates to the use of land) to a product manufacturer where there was no use of land at issue. The Court also determined that while the discharge of a firearm could constitute a public nuisance, the manufacture of one could not, as gun manufacturing was a legal and regulated activity.
In a lengthy decision in Drover v. Canada (Attorney General), the majority of the Court allowed the appeal of the ex-returning officer for Carleton, who sought a declaration that residency requirements in the Canada Elections Act to hold that office were contrary to the right to liberty under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The majority was of the view that the application judge erred in determining that the choice of residence does not engage in a section 7 liberty interest. In a lengthy dissent, Miller J.A. disagreed with the scope of section 7 and would have dismissed the appeal.
In Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., the Court dismissed a motion to stay a receivership order made under the Securities Act upon application of Ontario Securities Commission.
In Afolabi v. Law Society of Ontario, the LSO learned that its November 2021 examinations were compromised. The investigation process identified candidates that intentionally or inadvertently had advance access to a cheating key duplicating answers to the exam. The candidates in question had their exam scores and LSO registration applications voided. Twenty of the applicants applied for judicial review. The Divisional Court found in their favour, however, the Court set aside that decision in April 2025. The twenty candidates’ motion to re-open the appeal was dismissed.
In Bongard v. Bullen, the Court dismissed the defendant’s appeal from the motion judge’s dismissal of his anti-SLAPP motion, and further dismissed the self-represented plaintiff’s cross-appeal from the motion judge’s decision not to award costs. The Court agreed with the motion judge that the expression at issue was not related to a matter of public interest and that the self-represented plaintiff had not established any forgone earnings that would have justified overcoming the presumption that successful plaintiffs do not normally get costs on anti-SLAPP motions.
In Sapusak v Canguard Group Limited, the Court dismissed the appellant’s appeal of a motion judge’s partial summary judgment which found that the appellant’s mortgage was fraudulent and removed it from title.
In Kim v. McIntosh, the appellant father, who lives in Australia, unsuccessfully sought to vary a parenting order. He wanted more time with the children in Australia, and apparently, so did they. The appeal was dismissed. While the children’s wishes were a factor, they did not rise to the level of a material change in circumstances and were not determinative of the best interests of the children analysis.
In Bosrock v. Hutchison, the Court dismissed an appeal from an order granting spousal support and costs.