Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog: Civil Litigation
Sep
14
2026
Wilful Concealment
Paterson v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2026 ONCA 480
On summary judgment, the motion judge struck the plaintiff’s statement of claim, which alleged that the defendants conducted a decades-long campaign to injure and defame him. The Court of Appeal determined that the 15-year ultimate limitation period barred the action because the plaintiff knew the core facts of his claim by 2004 at the latest. The doctrine of wilful concealment could not toll the limitation period because the requisite causative element (i.e., ignorance of the cause of action caused by misconduct), was absent given the plaintiff’s own prior knowledge.
Continue Reading >Sep
14
2026
Declaration – Limitations
Never Forgotten National Memorial Foundation v. Canada (Parks), 2026 ONCA 489
The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages and declaratory relief regarding the 2016 termination of a memorandum of understanding for a military memorial. The plaintiff conceded that its damages claim was statute-barred but argued that the claim for declaratory relief was exempt from the limitation period. The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that a declaration lacked any real-world effect, meaning it could not be used to bypass the two-year limitation period.
Continue Reading >Jul
06
2026
Mitigation
Williamson v. Brandt Tractor Inc. 2026 Ont C.A.
An employer appealed a judgment that awarded a dismissed employee damages for wrongful dismissal. The employer argued it had just cause based on a culminating incident and that the employee failed to mitigate damages. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, in part, reducing the overall damages awarded to the employee. However, it upheld the lack of just cause because the employer failed to present admissible evidence from the complaining customer. It also affirmed that the employee did not fail to mitigate – because the employer did not prove comparable employment was available (i.e. the employer had to prove both that the employee failed to mitigate his damages and that, if he had tried, he would have obtained employment).
Continue Reading >Apr
30
2026
Essential Term for Contract
Wright v. Wright 2026 Ont CA
Adult child and her spouse sought enforcement of an agreement granting them an option to purchase property from child’s mother. The court determined that a missing term regarding sale proceeds was not essential and could be severed. It further found no undue influence, fiduciary breach, or unconscionability in light of independent legal advice and the parties’ intentions. Accordingly, the agreement was enforceable and the plaintiff succeeded.
Continue Reading >Apr
15
2026
Frivolous Action or Appeal
2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 124
Mortgagor moved to re‑open a previously dismissed appeal after mortgagee had obtained summary judgment enforcing mortgage obligations that had already been upheld by the appellate court. The court dealt with the motion under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorises early dismissal of proceedings that are plainly frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. It found that the motion raised no exceptional circumstances capable of justifying the extraordinary remedy of re‑opening an appeal and instead sought to relitigate issues that were or could have been raised previously. Exercising its gatekeeping function under Rule 2.1, the court summarily dismissed the motion as an abuse of process with no chance of success.
Continue Reading >Apr
13
2026
Evidence and Self-Represented Litigant
Equifax Canada Co. v. Oh, 2026 ONCA 76
The plaintiff obtained summary judgment against the defendant, who sought to appeal but failed to meet several procedural deadlines while acting without counsel. The defendant brought a motion seeking transcripts of the summary judgment proceedings and additional time to perfect the appeal. The court concluded that transcripts were necessary because the motion judge permitted the defendant to rely on unsworn materials and oral submissions that were treated as evidence, making it impossible to assess the record without transcripts. To ensure a fair and intelligible appeal, the court granted the requested orders and extended the perfection deadline, leaving issues of admissibility and costs to be determined by the appeal panel. The court noted: “When a self-represented litigant who is making submissions begins to make statements that are more like evidence, the litigant should be sworn in and put in the witness box after being cautioned that the litigant will be subject to immediate cross-examination by opposing counsel or opposing litigant if self-represented on any factual statements made.”
Continue Reading >Apr
13
2026
Setting Aside Registrar’s Dismissal – Delay & Prejudice
Arumugasamy v. Subaschandiran, 2026 ONCA 102
Lender brought an action against borrower seeking recovery of unpaid loans, which the borrower opposed while advancing a much larger counterclaim. Although the matter progressed through pleadings and discoveries and reached the trial list, the action was struck and later administratively dismissed because lender’s lawyer failed to attend court and “lost sight” of the file. The appeal court allowed the action to be restored, holding that the delay was attributable to counsel’s inadvertence rather than lender’s own conduct, particularly where lender repeatedly attempted to obtain updates from counsel. The court further concluded that the defendant suffered no real prejudice, especially given borrower’s failure to prosecute the counterclaim or respond to lender’s counsel.
Continue Reading >Mar
27
2026
Project Manager’s Civil Fraud
1995636 Ontario Inc. v. 5010729 Ontario Inc. 2026 Ont SCJ (Div Ct)
Project manager provided development‑management services for a housing project and filed a $450,000 construction lien after the owner terminated the contract. The owner found that project manager was building a duplex rather than 13 units as represented. The trial judge rejected project manager’s evidence as not credible, found intentional deception, held that project manager was entitled to no more money than the owner had already paid, discharged the lien, and granted damages on the counterclaim. The Divisional Court upheld the result.
Continue Reading >Mar
25
2026
Contingency Agreement
Leduc v. O’Brien Estate 2026 Ont CA
Client settled a medical‑negligence action for a substantial sum. Lawyers sought approval of fees under a contingency fee agreement. The motion judge approved the settlement, but reduced the fee after finding the agreement unfair when made. The lawyers’ appealed, arguing the agreement was understood and voluntarily entered into. The Court of Appeal held that the agreement was unfair when made because the clients were vulnerable and the agreement did not comply with the contingency rules under the Solicitor’s Act.
Continue Reading >Mar
25
2026
Secondary Evidence
Bank of Montreal v. Ieradi 2025 Ont SCJ
Bank sought repayment of a line of credit, asserting that the defendant personally entered into and used the facility. The bank had lost the signed agreement. The dispute’s outcome depended on secondary evidence, including cheques, statements, and usage patterns. The court found the secondary evidence overwhelmingly indicated a personal agreement.
Continue Reading >