Canada: Court Of Appeal Summaries (October 5, 2015 – October 9, 2015)

Last Updated: October 19 2015
Article by John Polyzogopoulos

The Ontario Court of Appeal only released two substantive civil decisions this week, along with many more endorsements and criminal law decisions.  The civil cases involved an issue of an alleged conflict of interest of a Vaughan city councillor (no conflict was found), and the re-opening of a trial in light of fresh evidence uncovered by the CBC's show, Marketplace.

We hope you find this service useful and continue to share it with friends and colleagues.  Your comments and feedback are always welcome.

Civil Cases

Mehedi v. 2057161 Ontario Inc., 2015 ONCA 670

[Cronk, Lauwers and van Rensburg JJ.A.]

Golam Mehedi, acting in person
R. K. Agarwal and J. Marcus appearing as amicus curiae
D. Smith, acting in person and as agent for all respondents

Keywords:  Contract Law, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 59.06, Rule 50.06(2)(a), Motion to Set Aside Trial Judgment, Fresh Evidence, Tsaoussis (Litigation Guardian of) v Baetz, 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., Standard of Review, Deference


The respondents, 2057161 Ontario Inc. operating as ("Job Success"), is a job placement agency in Toronto. Job Success promised to find the appellant, Golam Mehedi ("Mehedi"), a job that paid $70,000 per year within two months. In return, Mehedi paid Job Success $3,700. Job Success did not find Mehedi a job, so Mehedi sued.

At trial, the judge found that Job Success did not promise Mehedi a job with that salary in that time frame. Mehedi was unsuccessful.

After the trial, CBC's television program Marketplace broadcasted an episode titled "Recruitment Rip-off." The episode exposed a Toronto recruitment agency exploiting vulnerable, unemployed persons by promising to find them jobs with salaries like Mehedi was promised. The business featured in the program showed the defendants promising prospective clients these jobs, and featured a witness as well.

Mehedi wanted to introduce the episode as fresh evidence and was advised to bring a motion before a motion judge of Superior Court under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside the order on the ground of fraud or facts arising or discovered after the order was made. Mehedi brought the motion to introduce the episode and a similar article from the Metro newspaper. The motion judge dismissed Mehedi's motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) because he believed that the new evidence would not reasonably affect the outcome of the trial. Mehedi was ordered to pay $500 to the defendant.

Mehedi appealed the motion judge's dismissal of his 59.06 motion.


(1) Did the motion judge err in dismissing the motion?

Appeal allowed. The trial should be re-opened and the matter remitted to trial judge for reconsideration in light of the fresh evidence. All previous cost orders against Mehedi are set-aside, including from the first trial. Mehedi is awarded $2,000 for the costs of this appeal.

(1) Yes, the motion judge erred in applying the test for setting aside an order under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The standard of review for a motion judge's decision under Rule 59.06(2)(a) requires considerable deference. The decision should not be altered unless the motion judge erred in principle, misapprehended or failed to take account of material evidence, reached an unreasonable decision, or if the reasons do not set out the judge's reasoning process and reflect a consideration of the main factors.

The test under Rule 59.06(2)(a) is to be applied after the judgement or other order has been issued. The court applied the test from Tsaoussis (Litigation Guardian of) v Baetz (1998), 41 O.R. (3d) 257 ("Baetz"), where the moving party bears the onus to show that all circumstances justify an exception to the rule that final judgments are final. The moving party must show that the new evidence could not have been put forward by the exercise of reasonable diligence at the original proceedings. The court then evaluates factors like the cogency of the new evidence, delay in moving to set aside the previous judgment and difficulty in re-litigating the issues.

Mehedi met the Baetz test to set aside the trial judgment under Rule 59.06(2)(a) because the new evidence is cogent, credible, and can affect the results at trial if accepted.

The motion judge's reasons for refusing to re-open the trial were inadequate. The motion judge did not describe the proposed new evidence or relate the test to it. He did not explain how the new evidence failed to meet the test.

The amicus curiae submitted that the motion judge erred by applying the test set out in the case of 671122 Ontario Ltd. v Sagaz Industries Canada Inc., 2001 SCC 59 ("Sagaz") for re-opening a trial. Amicus argued that the judge ought to have applied the Baetz test.

The Sagaz test is: (1) would the evidence, if presented at trial, probably have changed the result? And (2), could the evidence have been obtained before the trial by the exercise of reasonable diligence? It is important to show that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial, and if it had, whether it would have an important influence in the result of the case.

The motion judge did not err by applying Sagaz instead of Baetz, but in his application of the test. This case meets both the Baetz and Sagaz tests for re-opening a trial assuming there is any real distinction between the two tests.

Ferri v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2015 ONCA 683

[Cronk, Tulloch and Hourigan JJ.A.]

J. Pape and A. M. Bolieiro, for the appellant
T. Schreiter, for the respondent

Keywords: Municipal Law, Land Use Planning, City of Vaughan, Official Plan, Conflict of Interest, Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, ss.3 and 4(k), Rules of Civil Procedure, Pecuniary Interest, Councillor, Reasonable Elector Test


(On appeal from the order of Justice Robert E. Charney of the Superior Court of Justice, dated June 23, 2015)

The appellant is a regional councillor for the City of Vaughan.  His son, Steven Ferri, is an associate at the law firm, Loopstra Nixon LLP, practising in the areas of municipal, development and land use planning law.  Following the adoption of the Vaughan Official Plan by Vaughan City Council, Loopstra Nixon was retained by Antonio Di Benedetto to appeal an aspect of the Plan to the Ontario Municipal Board. Steven Ferri works directly on the Di Benedetto Appeal under the supervision of a partner at Loopstra Nixon.

Pursuant to s.3 of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act (MCIA), the pecuniary interest of any parent, spouse, or child of a councillor, if known to the councillor, is deemed to be the pecuniary interest of the councillor. If a councillor has a pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, the member shall declare his or her interest and is prohibited from voting.  However, according to ss. 4(k) of the MCIA, where the pecuniary interest of the councillor is so remote in nature that it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to influence the councillor, s.5 does not apply.

The appellant disclosed and declared an interest under s. 5 of the MCIA with respect to any matter which he knew that Loopstra Nixon was retained.  Given the importance of the Plan, the appellant brought an application to determine whether he could participate in council proceedings with respect to the Di Benedetto appeal without breaching the MCIA. The application judge dismissed the application, holding that Steven Ferri had a pecuniary interest in the Di Benedetto Appeal, and that Steven Ferri's pecuniary interest was neither remote nor insignificant.


The appellant argues that the application judge erred in dismissing his application by:
(1) applying an overly broad definition of the term "pecuniary interest" under the MCIA;
(2) conflating the analyses required under ss. 3 and 4(k) of the MCIA; and
(3) disregarding factors relevant to the analysis required under s. 4(k) of the MCIA.

Holding: Appeal Allowed


The court stated that case law establishes that a "pecuniary interest" under the MCIA is restricted to financial, monetary, or economic interest.  The court also held that what constitutes pecuniary interest sufficient to trigger the provisions of the MCIA is not to be narrowly confined.  Furthermore, the court also ruled in the present case that it is unnecessary to determine whether the appellant has a pecuniary interest in the Appeal because the appellant conceded on the application that Steven Ferri has an indirect pecuniary interest in the outcome of the Appeal.  The court held that having made that concession on the application, the appellant cannot resile from it on this appeal.  On the first point, the court was of the view that any pecuniary interest is so remote or insignificant that it falls within the exception in s. 4(k) and that, the appellant is not required to comply with the requirements of s.5.

The court held that the proper analysis of whether a councillor's pecuniary interest is too remote or insignificant to be reasonably regarded as likely to influence that councillor cannot be premised on the notion that, unless proven otherwise, the councillor is fixed with the same level of proximity and significance as his child. The s. 4(k) analysis must commence afresh and focus on the proximity and significance of the councillor's pecuniary interest in the context of all the circumstances.  The court held that the application judge erred in his approach to s. 4(k) by reading in a rebuttable presumption.

The court stated the test to be applied under s. 4(k) is well established, and asks "would a reasonable elector, being apprised of all the circumstances, be more likely than not to regard the interest of the councillor as likely to influence that councillor's action and decision on the question"? The court held that the application judge's application of the s. 4(k) test lacked analysis, therefore it falls to the appellate court to conduct the required analysis under s. 4(k).  The court held that a reasonable elector apprised of all these circumstances would not conclude that the appellant's deemed interest in the Appeal would be likely to influence his participation in debate or voting on the matter before council.

Civil Case Endorsements

Bishop v The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 676

[Feldman, Juriansz and Brown JJ.A.]

Richard-Benjamin Bishop, acting in person
G. Hotz, assisting the appellant
J. F. Evans, Q.C., for the respondent

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 21.01(1), Rule 21.01(3), Motion to Strike, No Reasonable Cause of Action, Frivolous and Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Appeal Dismissed

Chaudhary v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2015 ONCA 678

[Juriansz J.A. (In Chambers)]

B. Jackman and R. Lockwood, for the moving party
J. Todd and J. Espejo-Clarke, for the responding parties

Keywords: Immigration Law, Deportation Order, Motion to Stay, Urgency,  Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, Habeas corpus, Original Jurisdiction, No Serious Question to be Tried, Motion Dismissed

Criminal Decisions

R v DW (Publication Ban), 2015 ONCA 662

[Strathy C.J.O., MacPherson J.A. and Speyer J. (Ad Hoc)]

B. A. Callender, for the appellant
S. Porter, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Appeal of Conviction and Sentence, Assault, Mischief, Property, Failure to Comply with Conditions of Undertaking, Appeal Dismissed

R v Durette (Appeal Book Endorsement), 2015 ONCA 668

[Doherty, Benotto and Miller JJ.A.]

B. Saad, for the appellant
S. Dawson, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Controlled Drugs and Substances, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2), s. 4(1), Criminal Code, s. 354(1)(a), Possession of Cocaine for Purpose of Trafficking, Possession of Property Obtained by Crime, Search and seizure, Warrant, Crown Disclosure, Appeal Dismissed

R v Mohamed (Appeal Book Endorsement), 2015 ONCA 669

[Doherty, Tulloch and Huscroft JJ.A.]

Abdifatah Mohamed, appearing in person
B. Snell, appearing as duty counsel
G. J. Tweney, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Records Outstanding, Misconduct While in Custody, Appeal Dismissed

R v Amare, 2015 ONCA 673

[Strathy C.J.O., MacPherson J.A. and Speyer J. (ad hoc)]

N. Jamaldin and P. Genua, for the appellant
S. Shaikh, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Controlled Drugs and Substances, Possession of Ecstasy for the Purpose of Trafficking, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8, s. 9,  Freedom from Arbitrary Detention, Freedom from Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Reasonable Grounds for Arrest, Appeal Dismissed

R v Downes, 2015 ONCA 674

[Strathy C.J.O., MacPherson J.A. and Speyer J. (ad hoc)]

M. Gaspar, for the respondent
J. J. Navarette, for the appellant

Keywords: Criminal Law, Appeal from Sentence and Conviction, Controlled Drugs and Substances, Importing or Exporting Substances, Refusal to Declare Distrial, Reasonable Apprehension of Bias of Juror, Parity Principle, Appeal Dismissed

R v Blake (Publication Ban), 2015 ONCA 684

[Feldman, MacPherson and Miller JJ.A.]

Amy Ohler and Lynda Morgan, for the appellant
Lorno Bolton, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Sexual Assault, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b), Voluntary Statements, Right to Counsel, Double Jeopardy, Improper Inducement, Appeal Dismissed

R v Ogiamien, 2015 ONCA 680

[Sharpe J.A.]

Jamil Osai Ogiamien, in person
S. Guthrie, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Immigration Law, Robbery, Procurement of Prostitution, Immigration Detention, Extraordinary Remedies, Habeas Corpus, Appeal from Interlocutory Order, Jurisdiction to Hear Appeal, Appeal Dismissed

R v Pannu, 2015 ONCA 677

[Watt, Pepall and Huscroft JJ.A.]

R. Posner, for the appellant, Lovejeet Bains
M. Henein and M. Gourlay, for the appellant, Harneet Pannu
J. J. Wakely, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 4(3), Sentencing, Role of Jury, Juror Misconduct, Jury Secrecy, Criminal Code, s. 649(1), Charge to Jury, Post-Offence Conduct, Unreasonable Jury Verdict Test, R v Sinclair, Appeal Dismissed in part

R v Tainsh, 2015 ONCA 679

[Sharpe J.A.]

Kyle A. Tainsh, in person
E. Dann, duty counsel
M. Campbell, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Appointment of Counsel, Criminal Code, s. 684, R v Graat, R v Hill, Appeal Dismissed

R. v. Munroe, 2015 ONCA 671

[Strathy C.J.O., MacPherson J.A. and Speyer J. (ad hoc)]

M. Conway, for the appellant
N. Devlin, for the respondent

Keywords: Criminal Law, Possession of Marijuana, Mandatory Minimum, Sentencing, Appeal Allowed

Ontario Review Board

Latouche (Re) 2015 ONCA 675

[Strathy C.J.O., MacPherson J.A. and Speyer J. (Ad Hoc)]

M. Addie, for the respondent Cameron Latouche
S. D. Young, for the respondent Crown

Keywords: Criminal Law, Assault with a Weapon, Mental Disorder, Psychiatric Detention, Absolute Discharge, Fresh Evidence, Threat to Public Safety, Criminal Code, s. 672.81(2.1), Criminal Code, s. 672.73, Appeal Allowed

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

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

John Polyzogopoulos
Events from this Firm
8 Nov 2018, Conference, Toronto, Canada

This year’s program is entitled “An Analysis of Fidelity Claims for the Modern World.” The program will address important substantive and practical issues germane to today’s fidelity claims handling.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Blaney McMurtry LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions