In Kideckel v. Kideckel, the Court denied a motion to extend time to perfect two appeals from a defamation judgment and an order striking the moving party’s action, holding that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension because the proposed appeals lacked merit.
In 2609413 Ontario Inc. v. Brant, the Ontario Court upheld summary judgment for the respondent purchaser, finding that a second $300,000 consulting payment was expressly contingent on the purchaser receiving a cultivation licence. Since the cultivation licence was never received, the payment was not owing and the mortgage securing it was therefore properly discharged.
In Wiebe v. Smith, the Court denied an extension of time to appeal where the proposed appeal lacked merit, even though the failure to appeal on time was solely as a result of the failure by the proposed appellant’s counsel to file the notice of appeal on time and there was no real prejudice to the respondent.
In E.L.R. v D.M.S., a family law proceeding, the Court dismissed the husband’s motion to extend time to perfect his appeal from an order that upheld the striking of his pleadings, noting his persistent, egregious and unexplained non‑compliance with disclosure and costs orders. Applying the established extension test, the Court found that while the husband maintained an intention to appeal, the delay was unjustified, prejudice to the respondents was significant, and the moving party’s protracted litigation misconduct undermined confidence in the administration of justice.
In Icetrading Inc. v. Trayanov, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, concluding that the motion judge erred in finding a breach of contract and good faith and fair dealing.
Table of Contents
Civil Decisions
Kideckel v. Kideckel, 2025 ONCA 787
Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Service, Email, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 16.01(4)(b)(iv), Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 709, Laski v. Laski, 2016 ONCA 337, Wardlaw v. Wardlaw, 2020 ONCA 286, Sutherland Lofts Inc. v. Peck, 2017 ONCA 803
2609413 Ontario Inc. v. Brant, 2025 ONCA 788
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Debtor-Creditor, Real Property, Collateral Mortgages, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
Keywords: Torts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.04 (1), 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2015 ONCA 5, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 709, Laski v. Laski, 2016 ONCA 337, Wardlaw v. Wardlaw, 2020 ONCA 286, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Sutherland Lofts Inc. v. Peck, 2017 ONCA 803, R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp. v. Daoust, 2024 ONCA 489
E.L.R. v. D.M.S., 2025 ONCA 802
Keywords: Family Law, Parenting, Best Interests of the Child, Civil Procedure, Orders, Enforcement, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Self-Represented Litigants, Denomme v. McArthur, 2013 ONCA 694, Teitler v. Dale, 2021 ONCA 577, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Jex v. Jiang, 2021 ONCA 160, Howard v. Martin, 2014 ONCA 309
Icetrading Inc. v. Trayanov, 2025 ONCA 793
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and Sale of Land, Duty of Good Faith, Fair Dealing and Honest Performance, Unjust Enrichment, Trayanov v. Icetrading Inc., 2023 ONCA 322, Dynamic Transport Ltd. v. O.K. Detailing Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1072, John E. Dodge Holdings Ltd. v. 805062 Ontario Ltd. (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 304 (C.A.), Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co., 2002 SCC 43, Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19, Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781, Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 2015 ONCA 305, Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, Gholami v. The Hospital for Sick Children, 2018 ONCA 783
Short Civil Decisions
Miner-Tremblay v. Rintoul, 2025 ONCA 784
Keywords: Real Property, Encroachments, Civil Procedure, Orders, Mandatory Injunctions, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 63.01, 63.02, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, M & M Homes Inc. v. 2088556 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 134, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.), Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 149, SBG-Skill Based Games Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission), 2025 ONCA 692, Avedian v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., 2024 ONCA 53, Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., 2025 ONCA 465
1486151 Ontario Limited (Diverse Transportation) v. Chen, 2025 ONCA 786
Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1
Maresky v. Enthusiast Gaming Inc., 2025 ONCA 783
Keywords: Breach of Contract, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
B.M. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 791
Keywords: Public Law, Crown Liability, Child Welfare, Indigenous Children, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Appeals, Interveners, Case Management, BM v. Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4575
Petersen Energía Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentina, 2025 ONCA 785
Keywords: Private International Law, Conflict of Laws, Foreign Judgments, Recognition and Enforcement, State Immunity, Civil Procedure, Service, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 UNTS 163, State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, ss. 9(1)(c) and (2), Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655, Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322, Khan Resources Inc. v. Atomredmetzoloto JSC, 2013 ONCA 189, Xela Enterprises Ltd. v. Castillo, 2014 ONCA 275, Shanghai Lianyin Investment Co. Ltd. v. Lu, 2023 ONCA 285, CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada, 2015 ONCA 846, Singh v. Heft, 2022 ONCA 135
C & C Nestco Corporation v. Starr, 2025 ONCA 792
Keywords: Torts, Professional Negligence, Lawyers, Equitable Claims, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Adding Parties, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 5(2), Arcari v. Dawson, 2016 ONCA 715, Klassen v. Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407, Morrison v. Barzo, 2018 ONCA 979
Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 797
Keywords: Family Law, Support, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Costs, Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56 (Ont. C.A.)., Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8
Equitable Bank v. Cartel, 2025 ONCA 799
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Discharges, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40, s. 22(2)
Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 806
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 2.2.02(a), 2.2.03(1)(b) and (3)
CIVIL DECISIONS
Kideckel v. Kideckel, 2025 ONCA 787
[Thorburn J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Counsel:
B.K., acting in person
A. Simovonian, for the responding party
I. Sinke, for the non-party, A. Simovonian
Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Service, Email, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 16.01(4)(b)(iv), Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 709, Laski v. Laski, 2016 ONCA 337, Wardlaw v. Wardlaw, 2020 ONCA 286, Sutherland Lofts Inc. v. Peck, 2017 ONCA 803
facts:
BK and DK were estranged brothers. BK resides in California and has been listed as a vexatious litigant in both California and Nevada.
On February 1, 2024, DK sued BK for defamation (“DK’s action”). BK failed to defend and was noted in default. He abandoned his motion to set aside the noting in default and instead pursued a “prohibition” motion. On July 25, 2025, after a hearing in which BK participated, the motion judge rejected that motion. The judge found that BK had defamed DK. The judge awarded DK $50,000 in general damages, $20,000 in aggravated damages, and $20,000 in punitive damages. The judge granted a permanent injunction restraining BK from publishing false or defamatory statements about DK.
Earlier, on May 10, 2024, BK commenced a separate action against DK, DK’s wife DS, and others (“BK’s action”). Certain claims were struck in January 2025 for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, with $10,000 in costs ordered and unpaid. BK discontinued against some defendants but not DK and DS. On August 6, 2025, the remaining claims against DK and DS were struck as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process. BK was ordered to pay $4,000 in full indemnity costs. He was barred from bringing further proceedings against DK and DS without leave of the court.
On October 3, 2025, BK moved for production orders, a stay of the July 25 judgment, and disqualification of counsel including DK’s counsel. The court dismissed the motion. It held that BK failed to identify any reversible error in the finding that he had been properly served. His assertions were bald and unsupported. Mere disagreement with a factual finding did not justify appellate intervention.
In this motion, BK appealed both the July 25, 2025 defamation judgment against him and the August 6, 2025 order striking his action against DK and DS. He sought an extension of time to perfect both appeals.
issues:
Should the extension of time be granted?
holding:
Motion dismissed.
reasoning:
No. The justice of the case did not require an extension. On a motion to extend time, the court considered the well-established factors, including the moving party’s intention to appeal within time, the length and explanation for the delay, prejudice to the respondents, and, most importantly, the merits of the proposed appeals: Issasi v. Rosenzweig. The merits were dispositive. Lack of merit alone was a sufficient basis to deny an extension: Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, at para. 16.
The proposed appeal from the July 25, 2025 defamation judgment had no merit. Contrary to BK’s assertions, he had been served, he was aware of the June 19, 2025 motion, and he participated. As previously held, mere disagreement with the motion judge’s factual findings did not establish reversible error. The Google records appended to this motion did not alter that assessment. There was no identified error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
The proposed appeal from the August 6, 2025 order likewise had no merit. The scheduling of the motion had been appropriate in the circumstances, given the nature of the allegations and the broader litigation context. BK had been served with the motion record and factum by email in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, received the Zoom details, and confirmed in advance that he would not attend. His complaint about opposing counsel’s retainer was not a proper ground of appeal. The outstanding costs orders did not assist BK.
In these circumstances, there had been no valid basis to extend time to perfect either appeal.
2609413 Ontario Inc. v. Brant, 2025 ONCA 788
[Thorburn, Coroza and Gomery JJ.A.]
Counsel:
N. Jomaa, for the appellant
R. Sleightholm, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Debtor-Creditor, Real Property, Collateral Mortgages, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
facts:
The appellant, A.B., was married to the late R.A.B. who, upon R.A.B.’s death, became the sole owner of a property in Amherstburg (the “Property”) and the sole authorized signatory of a numbered corporation to which R.A.B. intended to transfer a preliminary medical cannabis cultivation licence before his death.
Around the time of R.A.B.’s death, the respondent, 2609413 Ontario Inc. (“260”), expressed an interest in acquiring the Property and all rights associated with the medical cannabis cultivation licence that R.A.B. was in the process of transferring to the numbered corporation. The parties entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (“APS”) for the Property and a Transfer and Consultancy Agreement (“TCA”) that provided for the payment of two $300,000 installments for “consulting services.” The respondent was to pay $300,000 upon the signing of the APS and a further $300,000 was payable upon the receipt of a cultivation licence from Health Canada. However, the second payment was not made and 260 never received the cannabis licence. A mortgage was registered in favour of the appellant in the sum of $300,000, the Property was sold under a Power of Sale, and the appellant claimed that she was entitled to $300,000 of these funds to discharge the mortgage. The motion judge granted summary judgement to 260, finding that the second $300,000 payment was contingent on 260 receiving a cultivation licence, and directed that the mortgage be deleted from the register with the sum of $300,000 being released to 260.
issues:
Did the motion judge err by granting summary judgment to 260?
holding:
Appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
No. First, the Court did not accept the appellant’s submission that the motion judge erred by failing to examine the plain terms of the mortgage, which did not contain any condition tying payment to the receipt of a cultivation licence. The motion judge properly examined other documents in addition to the mortgage, including the terms of the APS and the TCA which contained language contradicting the appellant’s submission. It was open to the motion judge to conclude that the mortgage was not a standalone unconditional obligation to pay and that the appellant’s entitlement to $300,000 was conditional.
Second, the Court was not persuaded by the appellant’s position that the motion judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to reconcile uncontradicted key pieces of evidence that the appellant tendered. The appellant placed considerable emphasis on the wording of the Statement of Adjustments, which she maintained reinforced her position that the second $300,000 payment was owed to her unconditionally. The Court found that whether the motion judge referred explicitly to the Statement of Adjustments or not, her reasons were alive to the language in the various agreements that $600,000 was to be credited to the appellant. The Court did not find support for the submission that the motion judge ignored the appellant’s evidence, and while the motion judge did not refer to every piece of evidence tendered by the appellant, it did not see any palpable and overriding error in her interpretation of the written documents tendered at trial.
[Thorburn J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Counsel:
A. Herschorn, for the moving parties
R. Sleightholm, for the responding parties
Keywords: Torts, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.04 (1), 1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., 2015 ONCA 5, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 709, Laski v. Laski, 2016 ONCA 337, Wardlaw v. Wardlaw, 2020 ONCA 286, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Sutherland Lofts Inc. v. Peck, 2017 ONCA 803, R. v. G.F., 2021 SCC 20, Liquid Capital Exchange Corp. v. Daoust, 2024 ONCA 489
facts:
Ms. W. and Mr. P. (the “plaintiffs”) alleged that Ms. H. and her former spouse and business partner, Mr. S., defrauded them by misappropriating funds from a real estate project. The plaintiffs obtained summary judgment against Mr. S. and other defendants. A trial then proceeded to determine whether Ms. H. should be personally liable for the plaintiffs’ investment losses.
The court released its Reasons for Decision on October 22, 2024, and found Ms. H. liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. Upon receipt of the Reasons, Ms. H. instructed her trial counsel to appeal. Counsel did not deliver the Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure due to personal issues.
On April 9, 2025, Ms. H.’s trial counsel advised her that the Notice of Appeal had not been delivered, and no Notice had yet been filed with the Court. Although the matter had been ongoing for many years, the respondents did not assert serious prejudice beyond delay in obtaining a final disposition. Ms. H. and Dunmar Investments, as the moving parties, sought an order extending the time to deliver their Notice of Appeal.
issues:
Should an order for an extension of time to deliver a Notice of Appeal be granted?
holding:
Motion dismissed.
reasoning:
No. The justice of the case did not warrant an extension. The Court applied the settled factors, including good‑faith intention to appeal, the length and explanation for the delay, prejudice, and, most importantly, the merits (1250264 Ontario Inc. v. Pet Valu Canada Inc., at para. 6; Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, at para. 15), and concluded the proposed appeal lacked arguable merit. It is well established that lack of merit alone may be a sufficient reason to deny an extension: Enbridge Gas, at para. 16.
The trial judge’s adverse credibility findings against Ms. H., including the adverse inference from her failure to secure Mr. S.’s attendance at trial after indicating she would call him as a witness, and her inability to preserve and produce business records, were owed deference and disclosed no reversible error.
The judge correctly found that Ms. H. adopted Mr. S.’s statements by silence and made false representations by omission where a duty to speak arose and further held her personally liable as a directing mind. The moving parties identified no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact.
Although the delay was attributed to counsel’s personal issues and the respondents showed no prejudice beyond delay, the absence of merit was dispositive. Accordingly, the Court found that an extension of time should not be granted.
E.L.R. v. D.M.S., 2025 ONCA 802
[Roberts J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Counsel:
[D.M.S., acting in person
J. Cushon, for the responding party, E.L.R.
R.A. Goddard, for the responding parties, E.C.M. and E.W.C.
M. Paterson, appearing as amicus curiae, Pro Bono Ontario
Keywords: Family Law, Parenting, Best Interests of the Child, Civil Procedure, Orders, Enforcement, Appeals, Perfection, Extension of Time, Self-Represented Litigants, Denomme v. McArthur, 2013 ONCA 694, Teitler v. Dale, 2021 ONCA 577, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Jex v. Jiang, 2021 ONCA 160, Howard v. Martin, 2014 ONCA 309
facts:
This motion emerged from acrimonious family law proceedings involving DMS, the husband, ELR, DMS’s ex-wife, and ECM and EWC, the wife’s parents who claimed an interest in the matrimonial home. Throughout the litigation, DMS repeatedly failed to comply with court orders, notwithstanding many indulgences. On July 26, 2024, McDermot J. struck out DMS’s pleadings because of his numerous court order breaches, which included his failure to provide sufficient financial disclosure and failure to pay substantial costs orders. McDermot J. stayed the order for 60 days to permit compliance and to allow DMS to move to set aside the struck pleadings. Subsequently, on October 31, 2024, the judge ordered DMS to pay $200,000 in costs to his former wife and $175,000 to her parents. Instead of appealing these orders before the prescribed deadline, DMS moved unsuccessfully to extend his time to appeal the July 26 and October 31 orders. In a November 29, 2025 order, Huscroft J.A. dismissed DMS’s motion and ordered he pay further costs. Huscroft J.A. noted that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to continue because he was not satisfied the appeal had any substantial merit. Moreover, DMS’s litigation conduct had been egregious. On May 16, 2025, McDermot J. dismissed DMS’s motion to set aside the striking out of his pleadings, emphasizing that DMS remained non-compliant with prior court orders.
While DMS appealed the May 16 order by serving and filing a notice of appeal, he did not pursue the appeal in a timely manner. After issuing a notice of intention to dismiss the appeal for failure to perfect, the Court office granted DMS several months’ indulgence to do so. DMS attempted to perfect the appeal but failed since he filed records rejected as deficient. Among other deficiencies, DMS’s record neglected to initialize the names of the parties and their children, and even after an order requiring that the names be initialized DMS did not rectify this error. Ultimately, DMS was obliged to bring this motion to extend his time to perfect the appeal by filing a corrected record.
issues:
Should DMS be granted an extension of time to perfect his appeal from the May 16, 2025 order refusing to set aside the striking of his pleadings?
holding:
Motion dismissed.
reasoning:
No. The Court held that granting the requested extension would be contrary to the interests of justice and the best interests of the parties’ child, which were overarching considerations on the motion. Informing the analysis of a request to extend time to perfect an appeal were four well-known factors: 1) continuation of the intent to appeal, 2) the length and explanation for the delay, 3) any prejudice arising from the delay, especially affecting a child of the marriage, and 4) the merits of the appeal. The conduct of the moving party was also relevant. Though accepting that DMS maintained a continuing intention to appeal, the Court stated that his delay in perfecting it was inordinate, inexcused and part of a long-standing pattern of DMS’s disregard for court orders. He provided no explanation for his delay in correcting deficiencies noted by the court office, even when granted indulgences. Furthermore, here DMS sought yet another indulgence despite not coming to court with clean hands; he was inexplicably still in breach of the court orders that resulted in his pleadings being struck initially. The Court emphasized that such breaches, along with his failure to pay enormous costs orders, were not trivial. DMS’s unjustified non-compliance caused great and continuing prejudice to the respondents’ ability to pursue their claims, especially since the responding parties brought forth evidence suggesting DMS was dissipating his remaining assets. DMS’s continued flouting of court orders also undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.
Finally, DMS’s appeal was plainly meritless, as it was based on his position that his ongoing failure to comply was immaterial. The Court firmly concluded that enough was enough, declining to grant DMS any further time to perfect his appeal, which had no chance of success.
Icetrading Inc. v. Trayanov, 2025 ONCA 793
[Miller, Paciocco and Favreau JJ.A.]
Counsel:
T. Simmonds and J. Pudwell, for the appellants
P. Masic, for the respondents
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Agreements of Purchase and Sale of Land, Duty of Good Faith, Fair Dealing and Honest Performance, Unjust Enrichment, Trayanov v. Icetrading Inc., 2023 ONCA 322, Dynamic Transport Ltd. v. O.K. Detailing Ltd., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1072, John E. Dodge Holdings Ltd. v. 805062 Ontario Ltd. (2003), 63 O.R. (3d) 304 (C.A.), Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, Bank of America Canada v. Mutual Trust Co., 2002 SCC 43, Atlantic Lottery Corp. Inc. v. Babstock, 2020 SCC 19, Cassano v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 781, Apotex Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 2015 ONCA 305, Kerr v. Baranow, 2011 SCC 10, Moore v. Sweet, 2018 SCC 52, R. v. Sheppard, 2002 SCC 26, Gholami v. The Hospital for Sick Children, 2018 ONCA 783
facts:
The appellants acquired land in Carleton Place, Ontario (the “Post Yard”) in 2016 to convert it into a commercial condominium. Before closing, they agreed to sell the respondents an unsevered portion, “Parcel 6,” for $275,000, conditional on municipal approval of the condominium conversion within two years. The appellants agreed to proceed expeditiously with an application to convert. The respondents paid $75,000 at the outset, to be used to assist the purchase of the Post Yard and paid $1,333.33 monthly. The agreement deemed first-year monthly payments as rent. Thereafter, monthly payments would be credited to the purchase price if the conversion and transfer occurred. If the conversion did not occur within two years and the respondent’s demanded repayment, the $75,000 would be repaid, interest would run from demand, and the respondents would vacate within 30 days. Clause 6 barred any compensation to the respondents for improvements or a refund of rent.
The appellants promptly pursued condominium approval. Within two weeks of acquisition, they presented the proposal to the municipal planning committee. The municipal administrator recommended an industrial plan of subdivision instead. The appellants continued efforts, including an appearance in April 2018. Approval had not been obtained by September 30, 2018. The respondents did not demand repayment or vacate but registered a Notice of Option to Purchase and later a Certificate of Pending Litigation. They sued for an equitable lien to secure their deposit and monthly payments credited to price, or alternatively damages for breach of contract, including improvements. The appellants defended and counterclaimed, including for fair market rent from October 2018.
On the appellants’ summary judgment motion, the motion judge found a breach of a “duty to act in good faith and take all reasonable steps to complete the sale,” awarded the respondents $285,000, ordered the respondents to vacate upon satisfaction of judgment, directed payment out of court to the appellants, denied specific performance, and did not address the counterclaim. The respondents remained in possession and ceased further payments after judgment.
The appellants appealed the motion judge’s order requiring them to pay $285,000 and sought a direction that the respondents vacate the property within 60 days.
issues:
1. Did the motion judge err in finding the appellants breached their “duty to act in good faith and take all reasonable steps to complete the sale”?
2. Did the motion judge err in his application of the law of unjust enrichment?
3. Did the motion judge err in dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim without providing sufficient or adequate reasons?
4. Did the motion judge err in his assessment of damages?
holding:
Appeal allowed. Cross-appeal dismissed.
reasoning:
1. Yes. The motion judge committed palpable and overriding errors in finding a breach of good faith. He framed a generalized “duty to act in good faith and take all reasonable steps to complete the sale” from authorities implying reasonable efforts obligations where a party promises to bring about an event. After Bhasin, courts were required to identify a specific good faith rule; the pertinent rule here was the duty of honest performance. A finding of dishonesty required proof that the appellants knew the condominium conversion was futile and failed to disclose that fact. The record did not support that inference. The October 11, 2016 meeting outcome was “not promising,” but that did not establish knowledge of futility. The appellants’ continued pursuit of approval after September 30, 2018, could not ground dishonesty in contractual performance because the two‑year obligation had expired.
The motion judge’s reliance on a failure to conduct a cost‑benefit analysis of the subdivision plan also erred. The contract contemplated a condominium conversion, not an industrial plan of subdivision. The appellants had no contractual obligation to consider that qualitatively different, more complex and expensive alternative. The motion judge’s own findings underscored that pursuing subdivision would rewrite the agreement. These errors undermined the sole foundation for the breach conclusion.
2. Yes. The motion judge misapplied unjust enrichment. He shifted from contract analysis to “equity,” and awarded relief by reference to enrichment, deprivation, and fairness, disregarding the contract. If he used unjust enrichment to measure damages for breach, that was erroneous. With no breach of contract, there was no basis for damages. Even had there been a breach, damages should have been assessed by the standard expectation measure, absent exceptional circumstances justifying restitution. He gave no reason to depart from expectation damages. If he treated unjust enrichment as a standalone cause, that too was wrong. A subsisting contract constituted a juristic reason barring unjust enrichment. The agreement comprehensively governed the parties’ rights and obligations if approval was not obtained, including the deposit, interest from demand, no compensation for improvements, and no refund of rent. Relocation costs were neither contracted for nor a benefit to the appellants.
3. Yes. The motion judge failed to address the appellants’ counterclaim, including the claim for fair market rent after the two‑year period. He granted some relief to the appellants but provided no reasons resolving the claim for market rent despite the respondents’ continued occupation and an earlier appellate comment that the counterclaim was arguable. The suggestion that he implicitly resolved the counterclaim was not borne out by his reasons. His order for vacant possession indicated that the contract had terminated; limiting monthly payments to $1,333 under an expired agreement was unexplained. The reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review.
4. Yes. In light of the foregoing errors, it was unnecessary to address damages. The $285,000 award was set aside.
SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS
Miner-Tremblay v. Rintoul, 2025 ONCA 784
[Lauwers J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Counsel:
K.D.J.R. and K.F.R., acting in person
M.G.T. Glass, for the responding parties
Keywords: Real Property, Encroachments, Civil Procedure, Orders, Mandatory Injunctions, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 63.01, 63.02, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, M & M Homes Inc. v. 2088556 Ontario Inc., 2020 ONCA 134, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.), Longley v. Canada (Attorney General), 2007 ONCA 149, SBG-Skill Based Games Inc. v. Ontario (Alcohol and Gaming Commission), 2025 ONCA 692, Avedian v. Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc., 2024 ONCA 53, Ontario Securities Commission v. Cacoeli Asset Management Inc., 2025 ONCA 465
1486151 Ontario Limited (Diverse Transportation) v. Chen, 2025 ONCA 786
[Roberts, Miller and Monahan JJ.A.]
Counsel:
E. Zhou, for the appellant
C. Rempel, K. Glowach and J. Houston, for the respondent
Keywords: Torts, Defamation, Anti-SLAPP, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1
Maresky v. Enthusiast Gaming Inc., 2025 ONCA 783
[Copeland, Wilson and Pomerance JJ.A.]
Counsel:
J.W. Srebrolow and A. Chekina, for the appellants
B. Chung and M. Puopolo, for the respondents
Keywords: Breach of Contract, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment
B.M. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 ONCA 791
[Favreau J.A. (Case Management Judge)]
Counsel:
D. Sterns, M. Seddigh, A. Abdulla and M. Robles, for the appellants
S. Pottle, for the respondent His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario
S. Pavic and S. Rajguru, for the respondent Attorney General of Canada
M. Wente and E.C. Carson, for the proposed intervener Chiefs of Ontario
H. Ahmad, for the proposed intervener Hiawatha First Nation
S. Choudhry, for the proposed intervener British Columbia Civil Liberties Association
S. Clarke, for the proposed intervener Canadian Civil Liberties Association
J.N. Falconer and E. McMurray, for the proposed intervener Nishnawbe Aski Nation
Keywords: Public Law, Crown Liability, Child Welfare, Indigenous Children, Civil Procedure, Class Proceedings, Appeals, Interveners, Case Management, BM v. Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4575
Petersen Energía Inversora, S.A.U. v. Argentina, 2025 ONCA 785
[Roberts, Miller, and Monahan JJ.A.]
Counsel:
L. Plumpton and M. McMahon, for the moving parties
M.J. Latella, and B. Hsu, for the responding party
Keywords: Private International Law, Conflict of Laws, Foreign Judgments, Recognition and Enforcement, State Immunity, Civil Procedure, Service, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 15 November 1965, 658 UNTS 163, State Immunity Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. S-18, ss. 9(1)(c) and (2), Paulpillai Estate v. Yusuf, 2020 ONCA 655, Ball v. Donais (1993), 13 O.R. (3d) 322, Khan Resources Inc. v. Atomredmetzoloto JSC, 2013 ONCA 189, Xela Enterprises Ltd. v. Castillo, 2014 ONCA 275, Shanghai Lianyin Investment Co. Ltd. v. Lu, 2023 ONCA 285, CIBC Mortgages Inc. v. Computershare Trust Co. of Canada, 2015 ONCA 846, Singh v. Heft, 2022 ONCA 135
C & C Nestco Corporation v. Starr, 2025 ONCA 792
[Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.]
Counsel:
C.G. Rogers, for the appellant
T. Gleason and M. Phyper, for the respondents R.W.W.D., F.M.V. and Smith Valeriote Law Firm LLP
Keywords: Torts, Professional Negligence, Lawyers, Equitable Claims, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Civil Procedure, Amending Pleadings, Adding Parties, Limitation Periods, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 5(2), Arcari v. Dawson, 2016 ONCA 715, Klassen v. Beausoleil, 2019 ONCA 407, Morrison v. Barzo, 2018 ONCA 979
Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 797
[Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.]
Counsel:
E.R.C., acting in person
A.C.T., acting in person
K. Robinson, counsel as agent for the respondent/responding party
Keywords: Family Law, Support, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Costs, Brophy v. Brophy (2004), 45 R.F.L. (5th) 56 (Ont. C.A.)., Dickie v. Dickie, 2007 SCC 8
Equitable Bank v. Cartel, 2025 ONCA 799
[Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.]
Counsel:
N.J.C., acting in person
H.W. Reininger, for the respondent
Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Discharges, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40, s. 22(2)
Tiveron v. Collins, 2025 ONCA 806
[Roberts J.A. (Motion Judge)]
Counsel:
E.R.C., acting in person
A.C.T., acting in person
Keywords: Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 2.2.02(a), 2.2.03(1)(b) and (3)
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.