LegalWatch: 2025 In Review

2025 represented a milestone year in the world of civil appeals, the use of artificial intelligence in public law decision-making, and contract law.

Canadian Courts clarified the test for leave to appeal, established why business considerations matter in actions for breach of contract, and may soon be turning their minds to the fairness of administrative law decisions made with the use of AI.

The LegalWatch newsletter has been tracking all of these legal developments. 

Here are some of the highlights from the 2025 calendar year:

1. When Will Courts Grant Leave to Appeal?

January, 2025 began the year with the Ontario Court of Appeal clarifying how to obtain “leave” or permission of the Court to bring a civil appeal. 

The Davis v. Aviva General Insurance Co. decision, 2024 ONCA 944, affirmed that the Sault Dock framework very much still applies where a party seeks leave to appeal.  

This framework involves considerations such as whether the proposed appeal involves the interpretation or constitutionality of a statute, the clarification of some general principle of law, the interpretation of a municipal by-law, or the interpretation of an agreement that engages issues of public importance.

The year ended with a December, 2025 piece devoted to the practicalities of seeking leave to appeal, “Top Five Tips When Seeking Leave to Appeal”. 

This article discusses some of the effective ways to persuade a Court to hear an appeal, including determining whether the Court below was exercising appellate jurisdiction and determining whether a stay of the underlying Order is required.

2. Why Business Realities Matter in Contractual Good Faith Cases

All Canadian business contracts are subject to a duty of good faith. 

The February, 2025 edition of LegalWatch canvassed the Sin v. Kela Medical Inc. decision, 2024 ONSC 6767.  Sin discusses how the Courts will assess whether a party has breached a duty of good faith based on commercial reality and common business sense.

The June edition of LegalWatch, “Why ‘Salty’ Contract Negotiations May Not Amount to Bad Faith” analyzed the fact that Canadian Courts will show a high tolerance towards aggressive contract negotiations.  That is, they will only impose judicial moralism in the form of “good faith” where absolutely necessary. Acting in one’s own economic self-interests is, at Canadian contract law, perfectly acceptable.

Later in the year, a 2025 decision of the Superior Court, Dr. Michael Emon Dentistry Professional Corp. v. Alexander Sevo Dentistry Professional Corp., 2025 ONSC 4961, seemed to suggest that a duty of good faith could very well apply to non-contractual arrangements such as a commercial letter of intent (LOI). 

However, even if that is the case, Canadian Courts will not employ that duty to re-write the commercial agreement between the parties.

3. Why Canadian Contract Law Matters in a Trade War

With the imposition of tariffs imposed by the American government on many Canadian goods and services, the March, 2025 LegalWatch discussed why Canadian contract law will have an impact on Canadian businesses subject to tariff sanctions.

4. How Parties Will Challenge Legal Decisions Made with AI

The May edition of LegalWatch posed a novel question in the public law / judicial review sphere: where administrative decision-makers employ AI in the decision-making process, will these decisions be challenged on procedural fairness or reasonableness grounds? 

Do applicants have a legitimate expectation, for example, that decisions affecting their legal rights and interests be made only by a human being and not a machine?

5. The Practicalities of a Civil Appeal.

August, 2025 offered practical advice to those seeking to appeal a lower Court order. 

This includes challenging legal (not factual) errors made by the lower Court and advancing two to three grounds of appeal at most.

The September, 2025 edition of LegalWatch developed the theme further, exploring the Martin v. 11037315 Canada Inc. decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, 2025 ONCA 648, which establishes that parties cannot simply “consent” to the outcome of an appeal and undermine an appellate Court’s adjudicative function.

***

For the LegalWatch readership, thank you for taking the time to read my scribblings in 2025. I look forward to writing about the topics above, and of course some novel ones, in the New Year. I wish you and yours all the best for the Holiday Season.

Marco P. Falco is a Partner and Litigator at Torkin Manes LLP who specializes in appellate litigation and judicial review.  He is the author of Torkin Manes’ LegalWatch. You may contact Marco about your matter at mfalco@torkin.com.  Please note that a conflict search will need to be conducted before your matter can be discussed.