Photo of John Polyzogopoulos

John has been the editor of Blaneys Appeals since the inception of the blog in the Summer of 2014. He is a partner at the firm with almost two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles professional discipline and professional negligence matters, as well as complex estates and matrimonial litigation. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of last week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Not surprisingly, it was a light week.

The most notable decision is Hutchingame Growth Capital Corporation v. Independent Electricity System Operator. The Court in that decision discusses the “anti-deprivation” rule of bankruptcy law that prevents the enforcement of contractual provisions that have the effect of removing assets from a bankrupt estate that would amount to a “fraud on the bankruptcy law”. The Court determined that in this case, a clause in a contract that provided for the termination of the contract upon bankruptcy of one of the contracting parties did not run afoul of the anti-deprivation rule.

Other topics covered included anti-SLAPP, breach of contract/fraud and security for costs.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email


Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (June 29 – July 3, 2020)

Good afternoon.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario released last week.

There were quite a few lengthy decisions.

Topics covered included:

  1. The availability of specific performance to vendors for the breach of an agreement of purchase and sale of land.
  2. Relief from forfeiture of office for breach of campaign finance spending limits in municipal elections.
  3. Striking pleadings for failure to comply with court orders in the family law context.
  4. Dismissal for delay.
  5. Knowing assistance in breach of fiduciary duty and knowing receipt of trust money.
  6. The test for access in a Crown wardship context.
  7. The ongoing suspension of the running of limitation periods even after a motion to certify a class proceeding is dismissed.
  8. A coverage and bad faith claim against an insurer that refused to pay out on a fire policy that was dismissed following a lengthy and hard-fought jury trial. Issues covered in this lengthy decision included the sufficiency of jury instructions, the availability of relief from forfeiture, and most interestingly, whether substantial indemnity costs were appropriate when allegations of bad faith were not proved (the court determined that the higher scale of costs was not appropriate in this case).

Wishing everyone a Happy Canada Day week!

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email


Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (June 22 – 26, 2020)

Good afternoon.

I hope everyone enjoyed the Father’s Day weekend. Summer is now officially here.

Please find below our summaries of last week’s civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Topics covered last week included:

a. contractual interpretation of agreements of purchase and sale of land;

b. a priority dispute between an Ontario and Nunavut insurer with respect to SABs paid by an Ontario insurer in respect of an MVA in Nunavut involving a driver also insured in Ontario;

c. a decision in French relating to jurisdiction/real and substantial connection;

d. raising new issues on appeal in the context of the enforcement of a mortgage and new allegations of a criminal interest rate being charged;

e. the duty to defend under a CGL policy for failure to supervise an employee in a sexual abuse claim;

f. security for costs;

g. the presumption of resulting trust in respect of the family residence (and whether the home constituted a matrimonial home);

h. the enforceability of a lawyer’s contingency fee agreement with a client under disability without court approval;

i. limitation periods on demand debts; and

j. the determination of the date of separation for the purpose of arriving at a valuation date and calculating the equalization of net family property.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email


Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (June 15 – 19, 2020)