23 September 2026
Samantha Ford
Since it was handed down in 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in Handley Estate v. DTE Industries, 2018 ONCA 324 — where the Court held that the failure to “immediately” disclose certain partial litigation settlements was an abuse of process warranting an automatic stay of proceedings, without exception — has been a source of controversy and frequent litigation within the legal profession.
23 September 2026
Noah Drees
In Canadian National Railway Company v Kitchener (City), 2026 ONCA 257, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed the abuse of process doctrine where a claim based on a continuing tort had been dismissed for delay, and a second claim was later brought against the same defendants based on the same facts. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding a partial summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims for coal tar contamination. The Court also observed that in this context, dismissal for delay is no different from dismissal on the merits.
3 February 2026
By Aidan TestaFollowing pressure to increase private access to the Competition Tribunal (“Tribunal”) Parliament has made significant amendments to the Competition Act to make it easier for private litigants to bring claims to the Tribunal. The most recent amendments, in force since June 2025, expanded the grounds on which private parties may seek leave to apply to the Tribunal. These amendments allow private litigants to bring applications if the Tribunal is satisfied that doing so is in the “public interest”. By doing this, Parliament has, in theory, opened the door to a wider set of potential litigants at the Tribunal.
24 February 2025
By Aidan TestaIn 2022, Parliament amended the Competition Act1 (the “Act”), allowing private parties to seek leave to bring applications for abuses of dominant position2 (“Abuse”) to the Competition Tribunal.3 The decision in JAMP Pharma Corporation v Janssen Inc, 2024 Comp Trib 8 (“JAMP”) is the first to interpret the leave test for Abuse cases. In JAMP, although the applicant failed to meet the test for leave on the particular facts of the case, the Tribunal interpreted the test as less stringent for Abuse cases, potentially opening the door for future cases to satisfy the leave threshold.
23 August 2024
By Jake GreenbergIn Dr. C. Sims Dentistry Professional Corporation v. Cooke, 2024 ONCA 388, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision that a restrictive covenant in an agreement of purchase and sale was reasonable. The decision affirms the principle that parties to commercial agreements are generally free to contract as they see fit, and that court intervention will only be justified in relatively rare cases.
22 July 2024
By Kendra TatemichiIn Binscarth Holdings LP v Grant Anthony 2024 ONCA 52, the Ontario Court of Appeal ("ONCA”) recently held that a limited partner may seek leave to commence a derivative action (a remedy typically reserved for corporations, rather than partnerships) where: (a) the general partner has refused to pursue a claim against a third party; (b) the limited partner is acting in good faith; and (c) the action appears to be in the best interests of the limited partnership. However, leave to commence a derivative action will be denied where the limited partner may sue directly, such as for breaches of the limited partnership agreement, breaches of fiduciary duty, or other damage caused to the limited partner(s) by the general partner.
9 July 2024
By Aidan TestaOntario’s Sale of Goods Act (“SGA”) implies several conditions in contracts for the sale of goods. However, parties can contract out of any such implied condition imposed by the SGA if they so choose. In Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc v Pine Valley Enterprises Inc, 2024 SCCA 20, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the contractual language required to displace provisions of the SGA.
28 February 2024
By Rebecca MangaIn Di Filippo v. Bank of Nova Scotia, 2024 ONCA 33, the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) recently clarified when plaintiffs may be permitted to amend their pleadings after the expiry of a limitation period. In this case, the ONCA set aside the order of the motion judge below, who had found the proposed amendments to be statute-barred, and allowed the plaintiffs to plead a new cause of action more than two years after the claim was discovered. The ONCA also allowed other pleading amendments adding new defendants, as the motion judge erred in determining that the claims were discovered against those defendants more than two years before the motion to amend was brought.
12 January 2024
ByBy Harleen Bhangoo
A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision serves as a cautionary tale to lawyers and their clients who may inadvertently or deliberately gain access to an opposing party’s solicitor-client and litigation privileged information.
28 November 2023
By Kyra BaloghIn a recent decision (Pereira v. TYLT Technologies Inc.), the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed that courts must look beyond “narrow legalities” and consider the full picture in claims for an oppression remedy.