Photo of John Polyzogopoulos

John Polyzogopoulos

Subscribe to John Polyzogopoulos's Posts

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 over two decades of experience handling a wide variety of litigation matters. John assists clients with matters ranging from appeals, to injunctions, to corporate, partnership, breach of contract, construction, environmental contamination, product liability, debtor-creditor, insolvency and other business litigation. He also handles complex estates and matrimonial litigation involving disputes over property and businesses, as well as professional discipline and professional negligence matters for various types of professionals. In addition, John represents amateur sports organizations in contentious matters, and also advises them in matters of internal governance. John can be reached at 416-593-2953 or jpolyzogopoulos@blaney.com.

Follow:Read more about John PolyzogopoulosJohn's Linkedin ProfileJohn's Twitter Profile
Jump To: Table of Contents | Civil Decisions | Short Civil Decisions | Criminal Decisions| Ontario Review Board

Good afternoon,

Following are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

In Sosnowski v. MacEwen Petroleum Inc., the Court appears to have unconvincingly dialed back how far the “appropriate means” test can go to extend the limitation period. In this case, the employee waited until he was acquitted of theft (which took six years, including appeals) before suing for wrongful dismissal (he had been fired for cause because of the alleged theft). I would have thought that on the basis of Winmill v. Woodstock (Police Services Board), 2017 ONCA 962, the limitation period would have been delayed until the acquittal. However, the Court did not see it that way, and distinguishedWinmillon the basis that the criminal charge of assault by the plaintiff against the police in that case was the other side of the same coin as the plaintiff’s civil claim against the police for battery. In addition, the Court felt that it was important that the police’s conduct was at issue in Winmill, while it was not in this case. With all due respect to the Court, I fail to see how the theft conviction was not the other side of the same coin to whether the plaintiff had been terminated for cause. If there is no theft, there is no cause. There also appears to be no principled basis to restrict the application of Winmillto situations where police conduct is in question. It is arguable that this decision and Winmillare in conflict, and that the Supreme Court ought to settle the debate of how far the “appropriate means” test should go.Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (DECEMBER 16 – DECEMBER 20, 2019)