Court Of Appeal Summary (July 7 – 11, 2025) - Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of July 7-11, 2025.It was a light week.

Topics covered this week included vexatious litigants and extensions of time to perfect an appeal in the family law context and stay pending appeal in a mortgage enforcement matter.

Wishing everyone a nice weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Civil Decisions

McLean v. Connell, 2025 ONCA 495

Keywords: Family Law, Matrimonial Home, Sale, Equalization of Net Family Property, Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Self-Represented Litigants, Appeals, Extension of Time, Costs, Leave to Appeal, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140, Rules of Civil Procedure, r.2.2.02(a), Bishop v. Bishop, 2011 ONCA 211, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Hobbs v. Hobbs, 2008 ONCA 598Kallaba v. Bylykbashi (2006), 265 D.L.R. (4th) 230 (Ont. C.A.), Leblanc v. Alghamdi, 2022 ONCA687, Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720, Lukezic v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2012 ONCA 350, Rizzi v. Marvos, 2007 ONCA 350, T.O. Estate v. D.O., 2024 ONCA 73

1396929 Ontario Inc. v. Valladares, 2025 ONCA 513

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Enforcement, Writs of Possession, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Amicus Curiae, Self-Represented Litigants, BTR Global Opportunity Trading Company Limited, 2011 ONCA 620, Carvalho Estate v. Verma, 2024 ONCA 222, Starkman v. Home Trust Company, 2015 ONCA 436

Safieh v. Hamza, 2025 ONCA 496

Keywords: Family Law, Child Support, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Dismissal for Delay, Extension of Time, Conditions, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 3.02(1), 61.13(3)(a), D.G. v. A.F., 2014 ONCA 436, Mauldin v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2011 ONCA 67, Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/1997-175, Guillaume v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 851 , Hoffelner v. Whiteley, 2024 ONCA 753, Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto (Re), 2022 ONCA 581, Langer v. Yorktown Securities Inc. et al. (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 555 (C.A.)

Short Civil Decisions

Amstar Pool ILP v. Tweneboa-Kodua, 2025 ONCA 493

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Residential Tenancies, Evictions, Non-Payment of Rent, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Stay Pending Appeal, Lifting of Stay, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C43, s. 21(5), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1.02, Bernard Property Maintenance v. Taylor, 2019 ONCA 830, Chowdhury v. Unity Health Toronto, 2025 ONCA 90, Ncube v. Hassen, 2022 ONCA 840

Marcotte v. Marcotte, 2025 ONCA 491

Keywords: Family Law, Divorce, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Orders, Setting Aside, Misrepresentation, Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 25(19), Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Gray v. Gray, 2017 ONCA 100, Hilton v. Hilton, 2021 ONCA 29, Issasi v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, Reid v. College of Chiropractors, 2016 ONCA 779, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 709

Duffy v. Duffy, 2025 ONCA 507

Keywords: Family Law, Matrimonial Home, Sale, Civil Procedure, Settlements, Consent Orders, Enforcement Orders, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Final or Interlocutory, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 19, s.110, Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, r. 2(1), Goft v. 1206468 Ontario Ltd., [2002] O.J. No. 3659 (Div. Ct.), Hendrickson v. Kallio, [1932] O.R. 675 (C.A.), Laurignano v. Laurignano, 2009 ONCA 241, McCart v. McCart and Adams, [1946] O.R. 729 (C.A.), Mertec Resource Development Ltd. v. Multi-Minerals Ltd. (1981), 129 D.L.R. (3d) 558 (Ont. C.A.)

Yui v. Yan, 2025 ONCA 504

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Costs

Curtis v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2025 ONCA 502

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Striking Pleadings, Abuse of Process, Abandoned Appeals, Costs, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1, 61.14(4), Rebello v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 127

CIVIL DECISIONS

McLean v. Connell, 2025 ONCA 495

[Gomery J.A. (Motions Judge)]

Counsel:

B.M., acting in person

S.C., acting in person

facts:

The married parties separated in 2019. The applicant husband obtained a 2023 final order for an equalization payment and sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent wife launched three successive appeals. The first two appeals because of delay and being out of time. The trial judge eventually ordered both the sale of the matrimonial home and the respondent's eviction to meet the applicant's entitlement to equalization payments. The respondent launched several unsuccessful motions that included (among other things) attempts to challenge the trial judge's order for sale, strike the applicant's pleadings, and seek a reversal of the order for the equalization payment.

Both parties moved to have the other declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 2.2.02(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act. The applicant also sought an extension to file responding appeal materials; the respondent sought to add a costs appeal.

issues:

Should the respondent be declared a vexatious litigant?
Should the applicant be declared a vexatious litigant?
Should the applicant be granted an extension of time to file his factum and compendium on this appeal until after a decision is rendered on his Rule 2.2.02 motion?
Should the respondent be granted leave to add an appeal of Hughes J.'s May 2025 costs award to her appeal?
Should there be additional directions in respect of this appeal?

holding:

Motions granted in part.

reasoning:

No.

The Court exercised its discretion in holding that the respondent was not a vexatious litigant. The record showed persistent non-payment of costs and "ill-conceived and executed" motions that could all be considered vexatious. Nevertheless, the Court decided that promptly moving the proceedings toward a final resolution would better serve the interests of justice. To prevent further delays, the Court barred further motions without leave.
No.

The Court held that the applicant was also not a vexatious litigant. A review of the respondent's allegations of misrepresentation, bad faith, and late filings did not establish a persistent pattern of misconduct or abuse under Rule 2.2.02.
Yes.

The Court granted the applicant a short extension because it would not prejudice the respondent and would aid efficient preparation.
Yes.

The Court granted the respondent leave to appeal costs based on similar considerations as granting an extension of time: prompt formation of intention to appeal, prejudice to opposing parties, and the appeal's merit. The Court held that granting the respondent a consolidated appeal met these considerations and minimally prejudiced the applicant (notwithstanding the debatable merit of the costs appeal).
Yes.

The Court expeditiously ordered under Rules 1.05 and 2.2.06(2) to set a schedule for exchange of materials, as well as the length of the facta to be filed.

1396929 Ontario Inc. v. Valladares, 2025 ONCA 513

[Paciocco J.A. (Motions Judge)]

Counsel:

L.V., W.V., and L.V., acting in person

M. Seddigh, appearing as amicus curiae, Pro Bono Ontario

B.S. Lailna, for the responding party

facts:

The moving parties defaulted on a mortgage granted to the responding party. The responding party enforced the mortgage by obtaining summary judgment and a writ of possession. The self-represented moving parties moved to prevent enforcement of the ensuing eviction.

issues:

Should enforcement of the judgment be stayed pending appeal?

holding:

Motion granted.

reasoning:

Yes.

The Court held that a conditional stay best served the interests of justice by striking a key balance: a stay preserved the responding party's enforcement rights, while ensuring that a premature eviction would not nullify a potentially meritorious appeal. The order appealed from was stayed until July 25, 2025. If by that date the moving parties have amended their grounds of appeal to include the ground raised before the Court, namely that the motion judge erred in finding that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial, the stay will be extended pending the appeal.

The test for a stay pending appeal is as follows: (1) based on a preliminary assessment there is a serious question to be tried; (2) refusing the stay would cause the appellant irreparable harm; and (3) the appellant would suffer greater harm if the stay is denied than the respondent would suffer if the stay is granted.

While not set out in the notice of appeal, amicus curiae identified a viable ground of appeal – that the motion judge failed to consider key evidence. The moving parties' affidavit filed on the motion for summary judgment showed that they were at a disadvantage because of a language barrier that interfered with receiving independent legal advice when they signed the mortgage. The trial judge's failure to address this evidence while heavily relying on it in other respects raised a serious question to be tried as to whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial that made the summary judgment process unavailable, particularly given that the moving parties were unrepresented.

The Court held that refusing the stay would irreparably harm the moving parties. It distinguished the fact-specific outcome in Starkman, which the respondent argued stood for the proposition that the prospect of losing a home was not irreparable harm. The Court held that Starkman was not that broad. In this case, there is a challenge to the validity mortgage, so the claim to irreparable harm is not undermined.

The Court found that the balance of convenience favoured the moving parties. Their imminent and significant harm upon eviction outweighed the responding party's speculative loss that may arise as a result of housing market fluctuations.

Safieh v. Hamza, 2025 ONCA 496

[Paciocco J.A.]

Counsel:

S. Hossain, for the moving party/responding party by way of cross-motion.

C. Nielsen, for the responding party/moving party by way of cross-motion.

Keywords: Family Law, Child Support, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Dismissal for Delay, Extension of Time, Conditions, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 3.02(1), 61.13(3)(a), D.G. v. A.F., 2014 ONCA 436, Mauldin v. Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, 2011 ONCA 67, Federal Child Support Guidelines, SOR/1997-175, Guillaume v. Ontario (Animal Care Review Board), 2024 ONCA 851, Hoffelner v. Whiteley, 2024 ONCA 753, Jewish Foundation of Greater Toronto (Re), 2022 ONCA 581, Langer v. Yorktown Securities Inc. et al. (1986), 57 O.R. (2d) 555 (C.A.)

facts:

The parties, who share three children, have been engaged in ongoing family litigation. In 2024, the trial judge granted the mother primary-decision making responsibilities, parenting time, retroactive child support and section 7 payments under the Federal Child Support Guidelines, to be paid by the father. The order also required the father to pay $1,000 per month and the mother's litigation costs.

The father appealed both orders but failed to perfect the appeal by the deadline. As a result, the appeal was administratively dismissed for delay by the Registrar, pursuant to r. 61.13(3)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The father now moves to reinstate appeal and extend time to perfect his appeal. The mother opposes the motion and brings a cross-motion for conditions to prevent asset dissipation before the appeal is heard.

issues:

Should the father's motion pursuant to r. 61.16(5) to set aside the administrative dismissal be granted?
Should the father's motion pursuant to r. 3.02(1) for an extension of time to perfect his appeal be granted?
Should the mother's cross-motion for the imposition of conditions to be placed on the father be granted?

holding:

Motion and cross-motion granted.

reasoning:

Should the father's motion pursuant to r. 61.16(5) to set aside the administrative dismissal be granted?

Yes.

The Court was satisfied that the father met the low threshold of "some merit" (Sickinger v Sickinger). The Court also looked at (1) the explanation for not perfecting the appeal within the stipulated timelines; (2) the length of and explanation for the delay; and (3) prejudice to the responding party (Hoffelner v. Whiteley).

The inquiry into merits could not be exacting at this stage due to the incomplete record. The main consequence of denying the motion is the loss of right for the father to even argue the appeal. For these reasons, the motion was granted.

2. Should the father's motion pursuant to r. 3.02(1) for an extension of time to perfect his appeal be granted?

Yes.

The Court was persuaded that the father had a timely intention to appeal and that it was in the interests of justice and in the children's best interest to grant the motion.

The father explained that he could not perfect the appeal within the required time because he initially attempted to self-represent, but he realized that he required legal assistance. The Court recognized that the father has had counsel for some months and there have been missteps, but since the delay has not been overlong, the Court accepted the father's reasons explaining the delay and was persuaded that it was in the children's best interest to hear the appeal.

3. Should the mother's cross-motion for the imposition of conditions to be placed on the father be granted?

Yes.

The Court had concern that the father might take steps to protect his assets from the orders under appeal. Evidence showed that he sold his home during the first extension of time and misled his children about purchasing a new one.

The father also refused to provide the mother with disclosure arising from the sale of his home and refused to attend a scheduled examination about his assets. There is additional concern that his current wife and stepchild may have left the country. This added to the concern that he may be disposing of his assets with the intention of leaving.

The Court agreed with the mother that if the appeal were reinstated, conditions would be imposed. The Court reinstated the appeal and granted an extension of time to perfect it on the following terms:

The father must submit to the Court an irrevocable letter of credit, made payable to the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice, in the amount of $100,000 by July 18, 2025.
The husband must, by July 18, 2025, provide the Court with his written undertaking not to encumber or dispose of any assets that he may have pending the outcome of his appeal. The undertaking should be addressed to the Registrar of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.
Also by July 18, 2025, the husband must provide the wife with: (a) a copy of the Agreement of Purchase and Sale for the sale of his home; (b) a statement of adjustments from the real estate lawyer acting on the sale of the home; (c) a tracing of where the funds are where they went from the sale of the home; and (d) an updated Financial Statement (Form 13).
The husband must rectify any deficiencies in the appeal documents that have been identified in the wife's motion materials without delay and make proper service within the applicable time limits.
The husband must serve and file by July 11, 2025, a certificate from a certified transcriptionist confirming that all required transcripts have been ordered.
The appeal is to be perfected by August 15, 2025.
If any of these terms are not complied with, the appeal is to be finally dismissed.

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

Amstar Pool ILP v. Tweneboa-Kodua, 2025 ONCA 493

[Coroza, Madsen and Rahman JJ.A.]

COUNSEL :

D. T-K, acting in person

K. Ley, for the respondent

Marcotte v. Marcotte, 2025 ONCA 491

[Madsen J.A.]

Counsel:

D.A. Bakaban, for moving party

N.Y.Zhou and M.Y.Zhang, for the responding party

Duffy v. Duffy , 2025 ONCA 507

[Thorburn, Copeland and Monahan JJ.A.]

Counsel:

F. Sherkin and S. Zakaryan, for the moving party/respondent

R.A. Fernandes and S. Tadeo, for the responding party/appellant

Yui v. Yan , 2025 ONCA 504

[Copeland, Monahan and Rahman JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J. Chen, for the appellant

D. Myers, for the respondents

Keywords:Civil Procedure, Costs

Curtis v. Toronto Police Service Board, 2025 ONCA 502

[Paciocco J.A.]

Counsel:

C. Davies and M. Cornett, for the moving party

G. C and T. R, acting in person

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be ought about your specific circumstances.

Court Of Appeal Summary (July 7 – 11, 2025)

Contributor

Table of Contents

CIVIL DECISIONS

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Canada