In Pederson v. Forget, the Court dismissed an appeal from a jury’s dismissal of an occupier’s liability claim, holding that the trial judge did not err in excluding the plaintiff’s expert evidence and, in any event, its exclusion did not result in a miscarriage of justice.

In Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. (Re), the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that it was moot since the plan of arrangement had closed and been implemented, and that it constituted a collateral attack on the Interim Order establishing the voting classification. The Court found no reviewable error in the application judge’s approval of the arrangement under s. 192 of the CBCA or in dismissing the oppression claim under s. 241.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Pederson. v. Forget, 2026 ONCA 118

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Occupiers’ Liability, Slip and Fall, Civil Procedure, Trials, Juries, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Probative Value, Prejudicial Effect, Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.2, Rules of Civil Procedure, 53.03, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, Parliament v. Conley, 2021 ONCA 261, R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawardena, 2017 ONCA 502, R. v. D. (D.), 2000 SCC 43, Brisco Estate v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 854

Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. (Re), 2026 ONCA 120

Keywords: Corporations, Plans of Arrangement, Security holders, Voting Rights, Remedies, Oppression, Reasonable Expectations, Civil Procedure, Orders, Collateral Attack, Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-44, ss. 192, 241, Rules of Civil Procedure rr. 14.05(2), 14.05(3), Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debenture Holders, 2008 SCC 69, Xplore Inc. (Re), 2024 ONSC 4593, RGL Reservoir Management Inc. (Re), 2017 ONSC 7302 

Short Civil Decisions

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited v. North Elgin Centre Inc., 2026 ONCA 129

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13

Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2026 ONCA 108

Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Procedural Fairness, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.2, Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v. Rahman, 2023 ONSC 3758, Rahman v. PSCC No. 779, 2023 ONSC 3834, Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, McLean v. Connell, 2025 ONCA 495, Kalaba v. Bylykbashi, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 320 (Ont. C.A.)

Kapital Produce Limited v. Farm Credit Canada, 2026 ONCA 114

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Orders, Final or Interlocutory, Security for Costs

2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 124

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Damages, Interest, Usury, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Re-opening, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 347, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1, 2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2022 ONCA 505, Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 860, Damallie v. Ping, 2017 ONCA 146, McGrath v. Joy, 2023 ONCA 46

Shifrin v. LDF Frozen Foods Inc., 2026 ONCA 125

Keywords: Contracts, Corporations, Shareholders, Remedies, Oppression, Civil Procedure, Documentary Disclosure, Financial Statements, Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6(2)

Kotsopoulos v. Toronto (City), 2026 ONCA 121

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Slip and Fall, Highways, Public Authorities, Municipalities, Liability, Civil Procedure, Partial Summary Judgment, City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 42(4)(b), Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 44(8)(b), Bello v. Hamilton (City), 2025 ONCA 758, Malik v. Atia, 2020 ONCA 787, Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783

CIVIL DECISIONS

Pederson. v. Forget, 2026 ONCA 118

[Sossin, Favreau & Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J.Y. Obagi and E. A. Quigley, for the appellant

S. Cavanagh and M. Taft, for the respondents

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Occupiers’ Liability, Slip and Fall, Civil Procedure, Trials, Juries, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Evidence, Probative Value, Prejudicial Effect, Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. O.2, Rules of Civil Procedure, 53.03, White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23, Parliament v. Conley, 2021 ONCA 261, R. v. Abbey, 2009 ONCA 624, Bruff-Murphy v. Gunawardena, 2017 ONCA 502, R. v. D. (D.), 2000 SCC 43, Brisco Estate v. Canadian Premier Life Insurance Co., 2012 ONCA 854

facts:

The appellant brought a personal injury action after slipping and falling on the respondent’s residential property. The claim was advanced under the Occupiers’ Liability Act, alleging that the respondent failed to take reasonable care to ensure the premises were reasonably safe. The appellant claimed that hazardous conditions on the property caused the fall and led to ongoing injuries.

The trial was heard by a jury. A significant issue at trial concerned the appellant’s proposed expert evidence. The appellant sought to rely on an expert report addressing matters related to the condition of the premises and/or causation of the alleged injuries. The trial judge, acting in the gatekeeping role described in White Burgess, excluded the expert report on admissibility grounds. The jury ultimately dismissed the action.

issues:

1. Did the trial judge err in excluding the appellant’s expert evidence?

2. If the exclusion was erroneous, did it result in a miscarriage of justice requiring a new trial?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

1. No. The Court held that the trial judge properly exercised the gatekeeping function under White Burgess. The judge correctly considered whether the proposed expert evidence met the threshold requirements of admissibility (relevance, necessity, the absence of an exclusionary rule, and the expert’s independence and impartiality) and then assessed whether its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.

The Court emphasized that admissibility decisions involving expert evidence attract appellate deference, particularly where they involve an evaluative assessment of reliability and utility to the trier of fact. The trial judge was entitled to conclude that the proposed expert opinion did not meet the necessary standard, whether because it lacked sufficient factual foundation, strayed into matters within the jury’s ordinary experience, or risked confusing or misleading the jury. There was no error in principle and no palpable and overriding error in the exercise of that discretion.

2. No. The Court held that even if the exclusion of the expert evidence had been erroneous, that would not have justified a new trial. The appellant was required to demonstrate that the evidentiary ruling resulted in a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, meaning that the verdict would likely have been different had the evidence been admitted.

The Court found that the jury had before it sufficient evidence to determine liability without the excluded expert report. The central issues in the case, including the condition of the premises and the circumstances of the fall, were supported by other testimony and documentary evidence. The proposed expert evidence was not determinative of the outcome, and its exclusion did not deprive the appellant of a fair trial. Accordingly, there was no basis to interfere with the jury’s verdict.

Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc. (Re), 2026 ONCA 120

[Gillese, Coroza and Osborne JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J. Groia and Y. Gal for the appellants, Murchinson Ltd., Nomis Bay Ltd., and BPY Limited

L. Nicholson and B. Ketwaroo for the respondents, The Cannabist Company Holdings Inc., The Cannabist Company Holdings (Canada) Inc., and 16834434 Canada Inc.

Keywords: Corporations, Plans of Arrangement, Security holders, Voting Rights, Remedies, Oppression, Reasonable Expectations, Civil Procedure, Orders, Collateral Attack, Canada Business Corporations Act, R.S.C. 1985, C. C-44, ss. 192, 241, Rules of Civil Procedure rr. 14.05(2), 14.05(3), Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debenture Holders, 2008 SCC 69, Xplore Inc. (Re), 2024 ONSC 4593, RGL Reservoir Management Inc. (Re), 2017 ONSC 7302 

facts:

The respondent, The Cannabist Company Holdings Inc. (the “Company”), sought court approval of a plan of arrangement pursuant to s. 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act (the “CBCA“), permitting it to restructure $270 million of pari passu senior secured notes. The notes were issued in three series (2025, 2026, and 2027) pursuant to a common indenture. According to the terms of the indenture, all senior notes outstanding at any time ranked pari passu and were equally and rateably secured with all other outstanding senior notes, without preference, priority, or distinction on account of the date of issuance or maturity.

The Company experienced significant liquidity challenges. The fundamental purpose and effect of the arrangement were to extend the maturity date of the notes and address the liquidity crisis. Pursuant to the arrangement, each holder of 2025 notes and 2026 notes would exchange their notes for new notes, and each holder of 2027 notes could elect to exchange their notes for either the same consideration as that offered to the other series or for new convertible senior notes.

The application judge granted an interim order on March 28, 2025 (the “Interim Order”), establishing the voting mechanics and voting classification for the meeting of senior noteholders. Importantly for this appeal, and over the objections of the appellants, the Interim Order provided that all senior noteholders would vote as one class, but that the votes should be recorded separately by series.

The meeting of senior noteholders was held on April 29, 2025, and voting proceeded in accordance with the Interim Order. A majority of the senior noteholders voting as one class approved the arrangement. Ninety-four percent of the outstanding senior notes were present in person or by proxy. Approximately 75 percent of the votes cast were in favour of the arrangement resolution, although only 20 percent of the votes cast in respect of the 2025 notes were in favour. The appellants sought leave to appeal the Interim Order, which the Court denied on September 19, 2025.

The application judge then granted the Final Order approving the plan of arrangement. The application judge found that the statutory and court-mandated requirements were satisfied, and the arrangement was put forward in good faith. The application judge concluded that, without the restructuring reflected in the arrangement, the Company would not have the liquidity to repay the 2025 notes at maturity, resulting in cross-defaults under the other senior note series and the likelihood that the Company would need to seek creditor protection. 

The application judge further found that since the terms of the indenture provided that in an insolvency proceeding, all senior noteholders would share the same collateral rateably and proportionately, any advantage of an earlier maturity date for the 2025 notes was illusory. Although extending the maturity dates of all senior noteholders to the same date resulted in a longer extension for the 2025 notes than the other notes, the 2025 noteholders received improved economic terms in the form of a higher interest rate under the new notes than that payable under the 2025 notes.

Finally, the application judge found that the special committee established by the board of directors of the Company undertook a thorough review of all potential alternatives, the Company obtained a fairness opinion to the effect that the proposed transaction was fair, to the senior noteholders and shareholders from a financial perspective, and that there were no better alternatives.

The appellants did not seek a stay pending appeal of the Final Order; the plan of arrangement was implemented, and the transactions closed.

issues:

Did the application judge err in approving the respondents’ plan of arrangement pursuant to s. 192 of the CBCA and dismissing the appellants’ oppression remedy application brought pursuant to s. 241 of the CBCA?

holding:

Appeal dismissed.

reasoning:

No. The application judge did not err.  As a threshold matter, the Court found that the appeal was moot since the plan of arrangement had closed and been implemented.  The appellants did not seek a stay pending appeal of the Final Order, and the relief they sought would fundamentally undermine the effect of the plan, whether framed as an order compelling the Company to repay the notes in full with interest or as an award of damages equal to that amount.

The Court further held that the appeal constituted a collateral attack on both the Interim Order and the decision of the application judge denying leave to appeal from the Interim Order.  At its core, the appeal challenged the classification of three series of senior noteholders as a single class for voting purposes at the special meeting, which was the primary effect of the Interim Order at issue. All the relief sought by the appellants followed from that challenge to the voting classification. Importantly, the appellants did not allege any other unfairness or unreasonableness in the plan itself.

Even setting aside the threshold issues, the Court found no reviewable error in the Final Order. The application judge applied the correct test set out in s. 192 of the CBCA and made factual findings with respect to the overall fairness and reasonableness of the plan and the lack of oppression. The Court noted that it is well established that s. 192 permits a corporation to make changes that affect the rights of the parties. Indeed, the provision is necessary where it is not practicable for a corporation to effect a fundamental change in the nature of an arrangement under any other provision of the CBCA.

The findings of the application judge as to whether the arrangement was fair and reasonable were fact-specific and required the assessment of different factors in different situations. Those findings were entitled to deference, and the Court found no basis for appellate intervention.

The appellants did not appeal the application judge’s finding that the Company lacked the liquidity to pay the 2025 notes on maturity. There was no dispute below, and there was no issue on appeal, that, under the terms of the existing indenture, in an insolvency, all series of senior notes would be due and payable in full, and senior noteholders would share the same collateral rateably and proportionately.

The Court observed that the relief sought by the appellants would effectively result in a preference for the 2025 noteholders, contrary to the terms of the existing indenture. It would also fundamentally undermine the plan, the specific objective and effect of which was to restructure the debt obligations and avoid an insolvency given the lack of liquidity to satisfy the 2025 notes, as found by the application judge.

With respect to the oppression claim, the application judge applied the correct test to evaluate the claim. The application judge found that there was no evidence to support a finding that it was a reasonable expectation of the appellants in the circumstances that the Company had waived its right to apply to the court for approval of an arrangement pursuant to s. 192 of the CBCA. 

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

McDonald’s Restaurants of Canada Limited v. North Elgin Centre Inc., 2026 ONCA 129

[Fairburn A.C.J.O., Rouleau and Roberts JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C. Francis and J. Streisfield, for the appellant

A. Parley, A. Quinn and A. Jarvis, for the respondent

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Commercial Leases, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Fresh Evidence, Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13

Rahman v. Peel Standard Condominium Corporation No. 779, 2026 ONCA 108

[Sossin, Copeland and Madsen JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A.R., acting in person

R. Love, for the respondent

Keywords: Real Property, Condominiums, Civil Procedure, Vexatious Litigants, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Procedural Fairness, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 140, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.2, Peel Standard Condominium Corp. No. 779 v. Rahman, 2023 ONSC 3758, Rahman v. PSCC No. 779, 2023 ONSC 3834, Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44, McLean v. Connell, 2025 ONCA 495, Kalaba v. Bylykbashi, 265 D.L.R. (4th) 320 (Ont. C.A.)

Kapital Produce Limited v. Farm Credit Canada, 2026 ONCA 114

[Huscroft, Trotter and Favreau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C. Burr and J. Harris, for the appellant

M.W. Shulgan, for the respondents

Keywords: Contracts, Interpretation, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Orders, Final or Interlocutory, Security for Costs

2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2026 ONCA 124

[Roberts, Paciocco and Favreau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A.A.F.F. and M.F., acting in person

H.W. Reininger, for the respondent/responding party

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Mortgages, Damages, Interest, Usury, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Re-opening, Frivolous, Vexatious, Abuse of Process, Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 347, Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.1, 2257573 Ontario Inc. v. Furney, 2022 ONCA 505, Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733, Robson v. Law Society of Ontario, 2023 ONCA 860, Damallie v. Ping, 2017 ONCA 146, McGrath v. Joy, 2023 ONCA 46

Shifrin v. LDF Frozen Foods Inc., 2026 ONCA 125

[Huscroft, Zarnett and Favreau JJ.A.]

Counsel:

D. Waldman and D. Steinberg, for the appellants

J. Cole and V. Nikolov, for the respondent

Keywords: Contracts, Corporations, Shareholders, Remedies, Oppression, Civil Procedure, Documentary Disclosure, Financial Statements, Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 6(2)

Kotsopoulos v. Toronto (City), 2026 ONCA 121

[Sossin, Copeland and Madsen JJ.A.]

Counsel:

A. Wolfe and A. Enwright, for the appellants/respondents by way of cross-appeal

S. Zacharias and N. Marotta, for the respondent/appellant by way of cross-appeal

Keywords: Torts, Negligence, Slip and Fall, Highways, Public Authorities, Municipalities, Liability, Civil Procedure, Partial Summary Judgment, City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 42(4)(b), Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c. 25, s. 44(8)(b), Bello v. Hamilton (City), 2025 ONCA 758, Malik v. Atia, 2020 ONCA 787, Butera v. Chown, Cairns LLP, 2017 ONCA 783 

The information contained in our summaries of the decisions is not intended to provide legal advice and does not necessarily cover every matter raised in a decision. For complete information or for specific advice, please read the decision or contact us.