Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 24 – 28, 2025) - Trials & Appeals & Compensation

Article Insights

John Polyzogopoulos’s articles from Blaney McMurtry LLP are most popular:

with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
with readers working within the Insurance, Healthcare and Law Firm industries

Good afternoon.
Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of November 24, 2025.

Continue Reading

In Chayil Church v Soneil Pickering Inc., the Court granted the Church an injunction restraining its landlord from terminating its lease until 30 days following judgment in the Church's appeal from the underlying decision in which the application judge found for the landlord. Applying the RJR‑MacDonald test, the Court found a serious issue to be tried given conflicting termination provisions in the various lease amendments, irreparable harm because the Church could not relocate on short notice without disrupting its many charitable programs, and a balance of convenience favouring the Church.

In MTCC 1067 v. 138 Ontario Corp., the Court upheld summary judgment against a commercial unit owner who claimed to have paid condominium fees in cash under an alleged discount arrangement, finding no credibility in the defence and no basis to raise a new limitation period argument on appeal. However, the Court overturned the motion judge's use of the oppression remedy to extend the condominium lien beyond its statutory scope, limiting the secured portion of the judgment to the amount permitted by s. 85 of the Condominium Act.

In Rosso v. Rosso, a dispute between brothers over ownership of a residential property, the Court dismissed the requested transfer of the appeal to Divisional Court and retained jurisdiction to hear them together, even though one of the appeals was from an interlocutory order that would normally heard by the Divisional Court with leave. The Court also granted the moving party an extension of time to perfect his appeal, and stayed the trial judgment ordering an accounting pending the appeal.

In Gidda Estate v. Gidda, the Court dismissed a motion to extend time to appeal from an order that set aside as void a fraudulent conveyance/transfer undervalue, finding prejudicial delay and lack of merit of the proposed appeal.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

Civil Decisions

Chayil Church v. Soneil Pickering Inc., 2025 ONCA 809

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Enforcement, Termination, Remedies, Injunctions, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 134(2), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 63.02(1), Hakim Optical Laboratory Ltd. v. 1570710 Ontario Ltd., 2010 ONCA 627, Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation v. Kaweesa, 2021 ONCA 215, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53, Bennett Law Chambers Professional Corporation v. Camcentre Holdings Inc., 2022 ONCA 658

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp., 2025 ONCA 796

Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Common Expenses, Non-Payment, Remedies, Liens, Oppression, Power of Sale, Vacant Possession, Civil Procedure, Limitation Periods, Discoverability, Summary Judgment, Fact-Finding Powers, Evidence, Credibility, Condominium Act, 1998, S.O. 1998, c. 19, ss. 85, 135, 136, Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, s. 4, Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15., Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 20.04(2.1), Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp., 2017 ONSC 4793, Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, Beardsley v. Ontario (2001), 57 O.R. (3d) 1 (C.A.), Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1352 v. Newport Beach Development Inc., 2012 ONCA 850, Toronto Common Elements Condo. Corp. No. 2041 v. Toronto Standard Condo. Corp. No. 2051, 2015 ONSC 4245, Kaiman v. Graham, 2009 ONCA 77, Irving Investments Ltd. v. York Condominium Corp. No. 21, 2022 ONSC 5967, McKinstry v. York Condominium Corp. #472 (2003), 68 O.R. (3d) 557, Noguera v. Muskoka Condominium Corporation No. 22, 2020 ONCA 46, BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 2008 SCC 69, Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 1908 v. Stefco Plumbing & Mechanical Contracting Inc., 2014 ONCA 696

Gidda Estate v. Gidda, 2025 ONCA 813

Keywords: Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Fraudulent Conveyances, Transfers Under Value, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Extension of Time, Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3, s. 187(11), Statute of Frauds, R.S.O. 1990, c. s.19, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 3.02, Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules, C.R.C., c. 368, r. 31(1), Comfort Capital Inc. v. Yeretsian, 2023 ONCA 282, Ontario Wealth Management Corporation v. Sica Masonry and General Contracting Ltd., 2014 ONCA 500, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Liu v. Chan, 2024 ONCA 699

Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONCA 822

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Transfers, Perfection, Extension of Time, Stay Pending Appeal, Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4, s. 7, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 6(2), 19(1)(b), Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 3.02(1), 61.09(1)(a), 61.13(2.1), 63.01(1), 63.02(1)(b), Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONSC 4177, Nifco v. Nifco, 2017 ONSC 7475, Binance Holdings Ltd. v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2024 ONCA 805, Cavanaugh v. Grenville Christian College, 2013 ONCA 139, Davis v. Amazon Canada Fulfillment Services, ULC, 2023 ONCA 634, Lax v. Lax, 70 O.R. (3d) 520 (C.A.), Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Dale v. Toronto Real Estate Board, 2025 ONCA 476, Issai v. Rosenzweig, 2011 ONCA 112, RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.)

Short Civil Decisions

Ghahsareh v. Ehsani, 2025 ONCA 795

Keywords: Family Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Costs, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133(b), Brad-Jay Investments Limited v. Village Developments Limited (2006), 218 O.A.C. 315 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 92, Hamilton v. Open Window Bakery, 2004 SCC 9

7084421 Canada Ltd. v. Savary, 2025 ONCA 808

Keywords: Contracts, Debtor-Creditor, Real Property, Mortgages, Remedies, Foreclosure, Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40, s. 22(2), s. 42(1)

2689686 Ontario Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, 2025 ONCA 801

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Insurance, Builder's Risk, Coverage, Exclusion Clauses, Doctrine of Nullification, Civil Procedure, Summary Judgment, Evidence, Experts, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 20.04 (2.1), Weston Ornamental Iron Works Ltd. v. Continental Insurance Co., 1981 CarswellOnt 1324 (Ont. C.A.)

Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd. v. Conacher Kingston Holdings Inc, 2025 ONCA 811

Keywords: Real Property, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Receiverships, Sales Processes, Offers, Approval, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Costs

Kovacevic v. Griva, 2025 ONCA 814

Keywords: Breach of Contract, Civil Procedure, Uncontested Trials, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 52.01(2)

Park v. Manulife Bank of Canada, 2025 ONCA 815

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Enforcement, Writs of Possession, Trespass, Civil Procedure, Default Judgments, Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 63.02(1)(b), RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311, Circuit World Corp. v. Lesperance (1997), 33 O.R. (3d) 674 (C.A.), Starkman v. Home Trust Company, 2015 ONCA 436

Home Trust Company v. Pitters, 2025 ONCA 818

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Enforcement, Civil Procedure, Default Judgments, Setting Aside, Appeals, Extension of Time, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 61.04, Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc. v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131, Liu v. Chan, 2024 ONCA 699

Wicke v. Hilderley, 2025 ONCA 810

Keywords: Intentional Torts, Assault, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Credibility, The Rule in Browne v Dunne, Browne v. Dunne (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.)

Byrd v. Douglas K. Murdoch Revocable Trust, 2025 ONCA 825

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Appeals, Panel Review, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Security for Costs, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 7(5), Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 56.01, r. 61.06(1), Hillmount Capital Inc. v. Pizale, 2021 ONCA 364

Szot v. Cozzi, 2025 ONCA 824

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Standing, Vexatious Litigants, Public Guardian and Trustee, Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.)

CIVIL DECISIONS

Chayil Church v. Soneil Pickering Inc., 2025 ONCA 809

[Thorburn J.A. (Motion Judge)]

Counsel:

J. Radnoff and A. Khan, for the moving party

S. Rogers and D. Poliwada, for the responding party

facts:

Since 1992, Chayil Church ("the Church") and its predecessors continuously occupied space in a property purchased by Pickering Inc. ("the Landlord") in April 2024. After proposing in May 2024 that the Church pay a nearly two-fold increase in rent, which the Church refused, the Landlord sought to terminate the lease on 30 days' notice. In serving its Notice of Termination, the Landlord relied upon a clause in a 1998 amendment to the lease agreement. The Church brought an application to invalidate the Notice of Termination, which was dismissed. It subsequently perfected its appeal of the decision dismissing the application.

The Church moved for injunctive relief restraining the Landlord's termination of the lease agreement until 30 days after the appeal judgment is rendered. As a precautionary measure, the Church also sought an order staying termination of the lease.

issues:

Should the Church be granted an injunction restraining termination of the lease until 30 days after the release of the appeal judgment?

holding:

Motion granted.

reasoning:

Yes. The Court held that the Church had satisfied all three prongs of the injunctive relief test from RJR-MacDonald. Section 134(2) of the Courts of Justice Act endows a single judge of the Court of Appeal with jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction preventing a landlord from taking possession of the leased premises pending an appeal. Such a motion will be granted where:

There is a serious issue to be tried on appeal,
The moving party will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is refused, and
The balance of convenience favours the moving party.

The Court observed that the first branch is a low threshold. Per the Supreme Court in Sattva, a practical approach should be taken in cases requiring the interpretation of commercial leases, with the overriding concern being determining the parties' intentions and the scope of their understanding. More specifically, when interpreting a notice to vacate a commercial lease, a court must focus on fairness, not technicality, and consider what the tenant would have understood about the intent and effect of the Notice of Termination.

In keeping with these principles, the Church submitted that the application judge failed to consider important issues, including that the lease was amended and extended many times, with varying termination provisions at different points in time. For example, the original 1992 lease had no early termination clause, the 1998 lease amendment contained the impugned 30 days' notice clause, and the 2008 and 2011 amendments provided for termination on not less than six months' notice should the landlord wish to demolish or redevelop the property. Among other things, the Church asserted that the application judge did not address the Church's significant investments to improve the property, of which it leased an expansive 44,222 square feet of space. Furthermore, the Church claimed that the application judge failed to consider that both parties knew it would be impossible for the Church to relocate within 30 days without disrupting its operations, and neglected to discuss the conflicting termination notice terms in the lease amendments. Though an Estoppel Certificate signed by the parties in 2024 made clear that the original lease and all 13 amendments were in full force and effect, the certificate did not resolve apparent conflicting termination provisions within the 1998 amendment preferred by the Landlord and the 2008 and 2011 lease amendments the Church relied on. The Court acknowledged that all these considerations were serious issues to be determined on appeal.

Irreparable harm was satisfied via the Church's submissions that it could not move on short notice without significant disruption to its religious and charitable efforts, which included rehabilitation programs for offenders, food security, and wellness initiatives, involving the work of volunteers from forty-one ministries. Despite its efforts, the Church had thus far been unable to secure an alternate space. The Court also noted allowing termination of the lease at this stage risked rendering the Church's appeal moot.

Finally, the balance of convenience favoured the Church, which had continued to pay rent during litigation in accordance with the lease, had no history of non-payment, and had undertaken to pay any damages suffered by the Landlord resulting from the injunction.

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp., 2025 ONCA 796

[van Rensburg, Dawe and Madsen JJ.A.]

Counsel:

Y.D. Payne and P. Batta, for the appellant

A. Casalinuovo, for the respondent

facts:

BSA (1388020 Ontario Corp.), controlled by Dr. BSA, owned eight commercial condo units in MTCC 1067 and was required to pay common expenses under the Condominium Act, 1998 (the "Act"). After settling a 2016 arrears dispute for a personally guaranteed $114,794.10, MTCC 1067 claimed BSA again stopped paying as of January 2021. A lien was registered on May 16, 2024, under s. 85 of the Act, and MTCC 1067 sued for an oppression remedy under s.135 of the Act and vacant possession.

BSA alleged MTCC 1067 agreed to a 25% "cash discount" and that the corporation falsified records and destroyed proof of cash payments. MTCC 1067 denied any cash-payment arrangement and maintained a policy against large cash receipts. Both sides alleged document fabrication.

By way of summary judgment, the motion judge allowed Dr. BSA to represent the corporation, accepted a paper record, rejected BSA's evidence as not credible, found no fraud in MTCC 1067's records, and concluded BSA failed to pay common expenses. She awarded $495,888.39, found $110,883.29 secured under the lien, then used ss. 135–136 under the Act to expand the lien to all arrears and granted vacant possession to allow for the exercise by MTCC 1067 of its power of sale.

issues:

Did the judge err in granting summary judgment given the credibility issues?
Did the motion judge err by failing to address whether part of MTCC 1067's claim was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002?
Did the motion judge err in expanding the condominium lien, using the oppression remedy under the Act to secure arrears that were not covered by the statutory lien?

holding:

Appeal allowed in part.

reasoning:

No.

The Court held that the motion judge properly exercised her discretion in granting summary judgment. Under Hryniak, courts are encouraged to use r. 20.04(2.1)'s fact-finding tools to deliver timely, proportionate justice unless a trial is necessary. The judge recognized the limits of assessing credibility on a paper record but found the evidence sufficient for reliable findings. She reviewed the affidavits, documents, and competing allegations of falsification, concluding that Dr. BSA's account was internally inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous records, and contradicted by MTCC 1067's ledgers and its policy against accepting large cash payments.

Her credibility findings were based on multiple factors: lack of corroboration, implausible "cash-discount" claims, inconsistent receipts, and no objective proof of substantial cash payments. Appellate intervention was unwarranted. Under Housen, credibility and factual findings attract deference and may be overturned only for palpable and overriding error. The Court found none; the judge applied the correct test, weighed the evidence appropriately, and gave clear reasons.

2 No

BSA never pleaded a limitation period defence as required under Beardsley. The judge had no duty to address an unpleaded defence. A vague, brief mention in the factum was insufficient, and the issue was not argued below. Under Kaiman, new issues cannot be raised on appeal where prejudice may result. MTCC 1067 might have adduced evidence on discoverability, meaning raising the issue afresh at this stage could be prejudicial.

3. Yes.

The Court found a legal error in the motion judge's decision to use the oppression remedy to convert unsecured arrears into secured arrears under the lien. Under the statutory scheme in the Act, a lien automatically arises when common expenses go unpaid. The lien also expires after three months unless the corporation registers a certificate of lien. Finally, once registered, the lien secures arrears that had not expired at the time of registration, future arrears, interest, and costs.

MTCC 1067 registered its lien on May 16, 2024, meaning only arrears from February 16, 2024 onward were legally secured. Lien rights for prior arrears were already expired and therefore an unsecured debt. The motion judge attempted to use the oppression remedy, which allows broad equitable relief, to "revive" those expired lien rights and secure the entire judgment debt, giving MTCC 1067 priority over other creditors in the sale of the units. The Court found that this misused the oppression remedy. The oppression remedy is intended to address unfair or prejudicial conduct between condominium stakeholders, not to reorder statutory priority rights against third-party creditors. Allowing courts to extend or revive lien rights would undermine the carefully crafted statutory scheme in ss. 85-86 of the Act.

Because MTCC 1067 was also obtaining vacant possession and pursuing its right of power of sale, expanding the lien would have directly affected third parties with potential claims on sale proceeds. That prejudice could not be justified through the oppression remedy. In conclusion, although the monetary judgment remained intact, the Court set aside the part of the order that transformed all arrears into lien-secured debt.

Gidda Estate v. Gidda, 2025 ONCA 813

[Paciocco J.A.]

Counsel:

M. Patel, for the moving party

B. Jaffe, for the respondent

facts:

In July 2016, a judgment of more than $1.5 million was awarded against KSG. Within a week, on August 3, 2016, he transferred his 50% registered interest in a Vaughan property to his sister-in-law, SRS, for no consideration. On November 3, 2016, he made an assignment in bankruptcy. The Trustee later sought to set aside the transfer. At trial, based on SRS's own admissions, the judge found that KSG had paid fair market value for the interest in 2008 and that the 2016 no-consideration transfer was void as against the Trustee. A vesting order was issued returning the interest to the bankruptcy estate.

A pre-trial schedule required SRS to serve a will-say statement and summons for KSG, whom she identified as a key witness, but she did not comply, did not call him at trial, and offered no explanation. She later attempted to appeal the vesting order but missed the 10-day appeal deadline under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency General Rules by more than two weeks. In seeking an extension of time, she claimed she had been unfairly deprived of KSG's evidence and that the trial judge mishandled remote-testimony issues. The motion judge found these assertions unsupported by the record, determined the proposed appeal was entirely without merit, and concluded that the delay prejudiced the bankruptcy estate. The motion for an extension of time was dismissed.

issues:

Should SRS be granted an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from the vesting order setting aside the 2016 property transfer?

holding:

Motion dismissed.

reasoning:

No.

Applying the "interests of justice" test for extensions of time, the court accepted that SRS formed an intention to appeal within the appeal period and that her initial use of the wrong procedure explained some delay. However, the four-month delay in bringing the extension motion itself was unexplained and prejudicial to the bankruptcy estate, which could not be wound up until ownership of the property was finally resolved. More importantly, the proposed appeal was found to be "totally lacking in merit," which the court emphasized is the most important factor in such motions and sufficient reason to deny an extension.

Her central ground of appeal, namely that SRS was unfairly deprived of KSG's evidence, was rejected. She had been directed at pre-trial to address any issues regarding his testimony but failed to serve a summons, failed to call him, and gave no reasonable explanation to the trial judge. The court concluded she was seeking a "do-over" of the trial by calling a witness she chose not to call the first time, and that it would not be in the interests of justice to extend time for an appeal entirely devoid of merit.

Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONCA 822

[Paciocco J.A. (Motion Judge)]

Counsel:

J. Radnoff and A. Khan, for the responding parties B.R. and N.R.

O. Eng, for the responding party S.R.

No one appearing for Computershare Trust Company of Canada Societe de Fiducie Computershare du Canada

facts:

This appeal arose from a dispute between three brothers, DR, BR, and SR, over a residential investment property in Toronto which they had owned jointly since 1988. Though all three brothers acknowledged that they formed an oral contract in February 2019 to sell BR's one-third interest to the other brothers, they disagreed about the contract's details and enforceability. Protracted litigation ensued along with familial animosity.

The Superior Court consolidated and heard together competing applications brought by DR and BR respectively, namely the "Breach of Contract Application" and "Partition and Sale Application". In the former, DR sought a declaration of the validity of the oral contract and an order of specific performance to enforce the sale of BR's interest to himself and SR. In the latter, BR sought division and sale of the property, with net proceeds split between the brothers, as well as an accounting by DR for property-related rent and insurance funds with one-third granted to BR. The trial judge dismissed the Breach of Contract Application and granted the Partition and Sale Application in part. Among other things, she ordered that the property be listed for sale under an associate judge's ongoing supervision, that the net sale proceeds be paid into court, and directed an accounting.

On August 22, 2025, DR filed his notice of appeal challenging the trial judge's dismissal of his application and her orders. In late September, the Office of the Registrar informed DR that his appeal would be dismissed if not perfected on or before October 16, 2025, as he had already missed the original September 22 deadline. Hence, DR delivered notice of the within motion on October 15, in which he requested three forms of procedural relief.

issues:

Should DR's appeal be transferred to the Divisional Court?
Should DR be granted an extension of time to perfect his appeal?
Should the judgment of Parghi J. be stayed pending appeal?

holding:

Motion granted.

reasoning:

The Court declined the requested transfer and instead ordered that the appeals be combined and heard together by the Court of Appeal, agreeing with SR's response to DR's transfer motion. It observed that DR's appeal of the Breach of Contract Application was properly before the Court of Appeal, whereas his appeal of the Partition and Sale Application would ordinarily lie with the Divisional Court pursuant to the Partition Act at s.7. Moreover, the trial judge's accounting order was interlocutory, and appeals of interlocutory orders fall within the Divisional Court's scope and require leave. To resolve this situation, where two parts of the appeal lay with different courts, the Court applied the test for combining appeals. First, it found that the appeals were "in the same proceeding," satisfying the test's threshold requirement. This was evident from the two applications having been consolidated initially, heard together, and decided via a single judgment. Next, the Court considered whether combining the appeals better served the administration of justice, assessing the risk of inconsistent results, the extent of overlap, whether any issues contraindicated joinder, and whether combination would secure the most just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the issues on their merits. Given the overlap between the issues in each appeal, combination would indeed be expeditious, likely less expensive, and would not prejudice the parties. No factors contraindicated joinder. The Court acknowledged that the interlocutory aspects of the appeal of the Partition and Sale Application orders would ordinarily require leave but held that here the final and interlocutory aspects were so interrelated that leave would inevitably have been granted.

2. Yes.

The Court exercised its r.3.02(1) jurisdiction to extend DR's time to perfect his appeal, extending the deadline to December 5, 2025. Per Enbridge Gas, the overarching principle was whether the "justice of the case" required granting an extension. The four relevant considerations were:

A. Whether DR formed and maintained a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period;

B. The length of, and explanation for, the filing delay;

C. Any prejudice to the responding parties because of the delay; and

D. The proposed appeal's merits.

The Court was persuaded that DR maintained his intention to appeal within the relevant time frame but failed to do so because he needed to retain new counsel and was uncertain about the proper forum. DR had prepared for the appeal by producing draft documents, served on the respondents on November 17. Thus, DR's delay had not been excessive or prejudicial, and the appeal was not without merit, as described below.

3. Yes.

The Court granted the motion staying the trial judgment pending appeal, as DR had satisfied the r.63.02(1)(b) discretionary stay test which mirrored the RJR-MacDonald interlocutory injunction test. Whether a stay is in the interests of justice depends on:

A. whether there is a serious issue to be tried on appeal;

B. whether the moving party would suffer irreparable harm if the stay were refused; and

C. whether the balance of convenience favours the moving party.

Serious issues existed here, relating to the trial judge's possible use of credibility findings made against DR in an earlier proceeding, her findings relating to payments and loans between the brothers, and the trial judge's failure to consider the limitation period in requiring DR to account for rents and insurance funds from 1992 to present. The Court accepted DR's submission that selling the property pending appeal could irreparably harm his family's emotional attachment to their long-time home. It was also concerned about wasteful settlement of setoffs against sale proceeds should the order to sell the property be set aside, and DR's wasted time undergoing an accounting if the accounting order were overturned. As there was no indication that a stay would inconvenience SR or BR, the interests of justice supported granting the stay.

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

Ghahsareh v. Ehsani, 2025 ONCA 795

[van Rensburg, Dawe and Madsen JJ.A.]

Counsel:

M.E., acting in person

K. Jagersky, for the respondent

7084421 Canada Ltd. v. Savary, 2025 ONCA 808

[Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C.S.S., acting in person

G.A., acting in person for the respondent

Keywords: Contracts, Debtor-Creditor, Real Property, Mortgages, Remedies, Foreclosure, Mortgages Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.40, s. 22(2), s. 42(1)

2689686 Ontario Inc. v. Lloyd's Underwriters, 2025 ONCA 801

[Copeland, Wilson and Pomerance JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J.H. Reiterowski and V. Paramalingam, for the appellant

G. Gill, for the respondent

Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd. v. Conacher Kingston Holdings Inc., 2025 ONCA 811

[Miller, Paciocco and Coroza JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J. Kulathungam and N. Panamaldeniya, for the appellant A.A., in Trust for a Company to be Incorporated

W.H. Greenspoon-Soer, for the respondent Cameron Stephens Mortgage Capital Ltd.

R. Sparano, for the respondents Y.B. and 2462686 Ontario Inc.

D. Denis and P. Rooney, for the respondents AJGL Group Inc. and 1001079582 Ontario Inc.

J. Larry and R. Shah, for the receiver TDB Restructuring Ltd.

M.L. Byers and K. Wasielewski, for the respondents I.A.S. and 2858087 Ontario Inc.

J.D. Wajs, for the interested party R.B.

Keywords: Real Property, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Receiverships, Sales Processes, Offers, Approval, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Leave to Appeal, Costs

Kovacevic v. Griva, 2025 ONCA 814

[van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.]

Counsel:

S. Saha, for the appellant

S.G. and M.G., acting in person

Keywords: Breach of Contract, Civil Procedure, Uncontested Trials, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 52.01(2)

Park v. Manulife Bank of Canada, 2025 ONCA 815

[Paciocco J.A. (Motion Judge)]

Counsel:

T. Park, acting in person

N. Marconi, for the responding party

Home Trust Company v. Pitters, CASE CITATION

[Paciocco J.A. (Motion Judge)]

Counsel:

M. Pitters, acting in person

A. McInnis, for the responding party

Wicke v. Hilderley, 2025 ONCA 810

[Gillese, Pepall and Zarnett JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C. Patterson, for the appellant

P. Millar, for the respondents

Keywords: Intentional Torts, Assault, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Credibility, The Rule in Browne v Dunne, Browne v. Dunne (1893), 6 R. 67 (H.L.)

Byrd v. Douglas K. Murdoch Revocable Trust, 2025 ONCA 825

[van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.]

Counsel:

D.B., acting in person

D.E. Harasym, for the responding parties

Szot v. Cozzi, 2025 ONCA 824

[van Rensburg, Miller and Sossin JJ.A.]

Counsel:

H. Reininger, for the appellants

O. Guillaume and J. Conway, for the respondent

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Standing, Vexatious Litigants, Public Guardian and Trustee, Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian (1987), 59 O.R. (2d) 353 (H.C.J.)

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.

[View Source]

Court Of Appeal Summaries (November 24 – 28, 2025)

Contributor

Table of Contents

Chayil Church v. Soneil Pickering Inc., 2025 ONCA 809

Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 1067 v. 1388020 Ontario Corp., 2025 ONCA 796

Gidda Estate v. Gidda, 2025 ONCA 813

Rosso v. Rosso, 2025 ONCA 822

CIVIL DECISIONS

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Contributor

Canada