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 evening,

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

The headline decision this week is Toronto (City) v Ontario (Attorney General). Everyone will recall that the Better Local Government Act, 2018, passed shortly before the 2018 municipal election, reduced the number of wards from 47 to 25 in the middle of the election campaign. The City and others challenged the constitutionality of the change. After Belobaba J. declared the change unconstitutional for violating the freedom of expression, last year a three-member panel of the Court of Appeal stayed the lower court decision pending the appeal, permitting the election to proceed on the basis of 25 wards. On the appeal itself, four of the five members of the panel of the Court noted that the section 2(b) protection of expression does not extend to the effectiveness of the expression. The majority therefore concluded that the change mid-election was not unconstitutional. The majority also found that the application judge had improperly subsumed the right to vote into the right to freedom of expression. MacPherson JA dissented, and would have dismissed the appeal, finding that the freedom of expression had been violated.Continue Reading COURT OF APPEAL SUMMARIES (SEPTEMBER 16-20)