Stay informed with the latest insights and updates

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 16, 2026.

Toronto’s preparation for the 2026 FIFA World Cup has introduced traffic and mobility measures that include restricting or pausing construction activities along key corridors during the event period, potentially impacting contractual performance and project schedules. Public reporting indicates that construction affecting major routes may be limited between May and July 2026, with some projects being sequenced or temporarily paused to accommodate traffic management and event logistics, creating foreseeable, non-project-specific constraints. In certain cases, active works may be stopped and resumed following the tournament, with associated demobilization and remobilization costs and schedule impacts falling to be addressed under the applicable contract mechanisms.

Ontario’s adjudication regime under the Construction Act was designed to provide rapid, interim resolution of payment disputes in the construction industry. Since the onset of statutory adjudication in 2019, the Divisional Court has been called upon with increasing frequency to delineate the boundaries of judicial oversight of adjudicators’ determinations. Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918, is not only the latest notable Divisional Court pronouncement on statutory adjudication, but it also addresses matters of general importance beyond the Construction Act: allegations of fraud, delay claims, adjudicator bias and the treatment of evidence on judicial review.

Every lawyer who practices in administrative law has surely heard the warning that the tribunal at which they are about to appear is a “kangaroo court” – a disparaging remark used to describe a tribunal that lacks structure and rules, willing to admit any evidence, far outside the rigours of the civil court system. This article challenges this assumption. Based on the analysis contained herein, Tribunals do not “let everything in” or ignore the rules of evidence without justification.

Generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) is poised to reshape the Canadian legal and regulatory landscape in 2026. As the Canadian government explores the domestic regulation of AI and businesses race to leverage AI technology, Canadians will have to navigate a changing terrain defined by both opportunity and heightened risk. This article highlights five AI trends that deserve particular attention in the year ahead, from the evolving regulatory landscape and growing scrutiny of ownership of AI outputs to questions about authorship, privacy and liability related to the use and misuse of the novel technology.

A powerful reminder for anyone sharing vehicle ownership. Consent from one owner can create liability for all. In Nowakowski v Campbell, 2025 ONCA 762, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a motion judge’s decision that a co-owner of a motor vehicle can be held liable for loss or damage caused by the negligent operation of the vehicle, even if they did not consent to a non-owner using it, so long as another co-owner did provide that consent.

Recent amendments to the Education Act require school boards to work with local police services to provide access to schools prescribed circumstances. The Ministry of Education has proposed new regulations that detail the circumstances where police must be given access to participate in school board programming and to implement school resource officer programs. This article provides an overview of the Ministry’s proposal.

Adjudication under the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, has become an established mechanism for resolving payment and contract disputes, but recent legislative and regulatory changes have reshaped how it intersects with lien and trust remedies. Practitioners must now navigate a more nuanced landscape, weighing not only the timing and scope of adjudication but also whether it should complement or replace traditional lien proceedings. Decisions about pursuing adjudication, liens, or a combination of both require careful consideration of enforcement options, procedural efficiency, and cost, particularly where multiple invoices or complex disputes arise. This article explores the evolving framework, recent case law, and strategic considerations for practitioners for selecting the most effective pathway to protect client interests and maximize recovery.

To better understand why members of the OBA Child and Youth Law Section do what they do, I sat down with some section executive members to hear what brought them to child and youth law and why they volunteer with the Section.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of March 2, 2026.

The year 2025 proved to be a defining one for human rights adjudication in Ontario. Significant judicial review decisions from the Divisional Court, notable findings of sexual harassment and sex-based discrimination, important rulings on pregnancy-related protections, and major procedural reforms have reshaped the landscape for practitioners and self-represented applicants alike. This article examines the key decisions and developments, with an eye toward what they mean for those navigating the system in 2026 and beyond.

The importance of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be overstated; predating the magna carta itself, it has been described by Adam Smith as the “great security against suppression," by William Blackstone as the “great and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement," and by many more as the “Great Writ of Liberty." Habeas corpus requires a public authority detaining a person to bring them before a court to justify the legality of their detention; if the detention is found to be unlawful, the court must order their release. Expanding on the law of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court in Dorsey v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 38 (“Dorsey”), found that a decision to deny an inmate a lower security classification can trigger the inmate’s habeas corpus rights.

In their letter to the legal profession, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police notes that orders under section 36(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act are meant to be “exceptional, time-limited remedies." The Association goes on to say that “police enforcement should be used sparingly.” Moreover, “recurring forced police apprehensions are not in the best interests of the child and should never become a long-term fixture in a child’s life to manage the parents’ behaviour."

A candid snapshot of a new lawyer’s first days in practice. An honest account of being thrown into the deep end—and discovering that uncertainty is the true starting point of legal practice.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of February 17, 2026.

A fundamental shift away from traditional discovery has been brewing in this province via the Ontario Civil Rules Review. The latest proposal, released on December 15, 2025, suggests a transformation of discovery under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Acceptance Speech of Justin Nasseri, inaugural OBA Civil Litigation Emerging Leader Award winner, with introduction by OBA Civil Litigation Executive Chair, Adil Abdulla

On January 30, 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal released a significant decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Responsible Plastic Use Coalition, 2026 FCA 17, reshaping the national conversation on plastics regulation and validating the federal government’s authority to list Plastic Manufactured Items as “toxic” under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999.

It has been nearly a decade since a province has enacted franchise legislation in Canada, but Saskatchewan is set to change that. Its new The Franchise Disclosure Act, coming into force on June 30, 2026, and its accompanying regulations brings the province into the regulated fold, introducing statutory disclosure requirements for franchisors operating in Saskatchewan. While the regime largely mirrors the models found in other provinces, it introduces several distinctive elements that franchisors need to understand, changes that close a longstanding regulatory gap and create new national compliance considerations that franchisors should begin planning for now.

In two recent decisions, the Ontario Land Tribunal confirmed that the individual and fact-specific context of an application factors heavily on the reasonableness of a condition requiring parkland dedication, or cash in lieu (“CIL”). These rulings make clear that parkland dedication is not a generalized revenue tool for municipalities and is not intended to be imposed on every proposal that could be classified as development or redevelopment.