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

Good evening.

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

The most notable decision of the week was Ontario (Attorney General) v. Bogaerts, in which the Court reversed the Superior Court’s decision to strike down certain portions of the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act. In upholding the constitutionality of those provisions, the Court reaffirmed that when dealing with regulatory matters, as opposed to criminal matters, a less strenuous and more flexible standard of reasonableness applies. With respect to the s. 8 challenge to that legislation, the Court held that the application judge came to the right conclusion as the provisions imposed a sufficient procedural safeguard against unreasonable search and seizure in the context of animal protection. However, the application judge erred in law in concluding that the impugned provisions engaged the liberty and security of the person interests under s. 7, and in recognizing a novel principle of fundamental justice. Ultimately, the Court found that the powers conferred by the provisions at issue were too remote from the possibility of conviction and imprisonment to engage the liberty interest and they did not plainly interfere with bodily integrity or control over one’s body. Furthermore, with respect to the proposed new principle of fundamental justice, namely that “law enforcement bodies must be subject to reasonable standards of transparency and accountability”, the Court found that it met none of the three criteria established by the Supreme Court of Canada in Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74.Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (NOVEMBER 11 – NOVEMBER 15, 2019)