Appeals & Judicial Reviews

We have extensive experience handling appeals and judicial review proceedings. We frequently represent clients before the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court, seeking to preserve victories or correct errors from lower court decisions. Our expertise in appellate practice ensures that we craft persuasive arguments tailored to the appellate courts’ unique requirements. Notably, we have successfully appealed and defended multiple appeals from personal injury and medical malpractice trials, involving complex issues of fact and law.

We also handle judicial review proceedings challenging the decisions of administrative bodies, including government agencies, regulators, and universities. Our experience allows us to identify errors or injustices in both the outcome and the process, presenting compelling cases for correction. As an example of our success, we reversed a university’s expulsion decision based on unfairness in process and outcome, despite the typical deference given to academic institutions.

Our work in this area includes:

– Handling appeals before the Court of Appeal, Divisional Court, and Superior Court of Justice

– Filing motions for leave to appeal at all levels of court in Ontario

– Conducting judicial reviews of administrative and regulatory decisions, including those of universities

– Reviewing decisions of regulated health professional colleges before the Health Professions Appeal & Review Board (HPARB)

– Providing opinions on the merits of potential appeals to clients and other law firms

Reported Decisions

Farej v. Fellows, 2022 ONCA 254
– Co-counsel at the Ontario Court of Appeal in a medical negligence case, where the Court held that the trial judge’s reasons for decision were deficient, and successfully overturned the trial decision dismissing the action

Ford v. University of Ottawa, 2022 ONSC 6828
– Successful judicial review application before the Divisional Court to challenge a University’s decision to expel a student on the basis that the process and outcome were unfair and unreasonable

Bergmanis v. Diamond, 2021 ONSC 2375
– Acted for one of the respondent lawyers in a long-running arbitration related to the payment of referral fees between personal injury law firms, successfully moving before the arbitrator to quash a summons against the lawyer on privilege grounds, and then successfully resisting the appeal of that decision

Stirrett v. Cheema, 2020 ONCA 288
– Acted for a consortium of medical researchers who were granted intervenor status in this appeal regarding the scope and application of medical researchers’ duties to participants in medical research trials

Sokoloff v. Bateriwala, 2019 ONSC 5442
– Successfully opposed a motion to extend the time to set a matter down for trial after delay by the Plaintiff in pursuing the litigation, and resisted an appeal of this decision before the Divisional Court (Sokoloff v. Bateriwala, 2020 ONSC 7569)

Sub-Prime Mortgage Corporation v. 1219076 Ontario Limited, 2019 ONCA 581
– Argued an appeal in which the Court of Appeal clarified the appropriate procedure to be used when a mortgage discharge statement is disputed

Benedetto v. 2453912 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONCA 149
– Acted as counsel on an appeal in which the Court of Appeal addressed how the law of deposits interacts with the law of pre-incorporation contracts under Section 21 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act

Mamado v. Fridson, 2018 ONCA 806
– Acted for a plaintiff in successfully resisting an appeal of a jury verdict in her favour at a personal injury trial

College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Peirovy, 2018 ONCA 420
– Part of a team acting for a physician in successfully resisting a revocation order at the Ontario Physicians and Surgeons Discipline Tribunal. After the Divisional Court allowed an appeal from that penalty, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the Divisional Court’s decision and reinstated the original penalty decision. The decision was notable for its important guidance on the standard of review applicable to penalty decisions of administrative tribunals.

Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2018 ONCA 88
– Appeared as counsel on an appeal in which the Court of Appeal considered the distinction between interlocutory and final orders in the class actions funding context

Blew v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 8053
– Successfully resisted an attempted appeal to the Divisional Court from an interlocutory decision of a professional regulatory tribunal on the basis of prematurity

König v. Hobza, 2015 ONCA 885
– Appeared as counsel on an appeal in which the Court of Appeal considered the effects of settlement offers that do not strictly comply with Rule 49.10 in the setting of costs