Firm News: 40% of our lawyers recognized by Best Lawyers
Monday April 6, 2020

Ontario Court of Appeal Finds Ways to Hear Appeals During COVID-19

Authored by: Terrance G. Sheppard Posted in: COVID-19 Family Law

Unlike Nova Scotia, the Ontario Court of Appeal is allowing parties who had scheduled appeals to request their appeal be heard in writing. Information can be found here. In contrast, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal has adjourned or postponed all hearings that were scheduled for May/June with no option to proceed in writing. Information can be found here.

In Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v. Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 (“Carleton Condominium”), the Ontario Court of Appeal conducted a teleconference on April 2, 2020 to rule on whether the appeal should postpone until the fall or continue, either based on the written material alone, with a full oral hearing by teleconference, or some other means.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held, “It is in the interests of justice to have the appeal proceed in writing based on the materials filed. The parties will have an opportunity to respond, by teleconference, to any questions the panel may have, on the date set for the appeal, April 9, 2020.”1

The Court decided the appeal could fairly proceed in writing since one of the parties was a lawyer and the written materials filed by both parties were professionally prepared.2 The issues were also capable of being decided in writing, the Court of Appeal held.3

The Court stated that even if the appellant had a preference to present his arguments during an in-court oral hearing, this was not in the interests of justice.4 Specifically, delaying the appeal would be prejudicial to these parties and the overall court system. At paragraph 7, the Court noted:

[7] Moreover, it is not in the interests of justice to overburden the court by adjourning matters that can be dealt with fairly, as scheduled. The backlog that will be created by cases that must be adjourned to protect the public and ensure fair hearings will be imposing and it should not be unnecessarily aggravated.

The court also held that they would not have a full, oral hearing by telephone conference, but rather, the parties would only be given the opportunity to respond to any questions by the panel of judges hearing the appeal. The court held that completing the entire oral hearing by teleconference would lead to a litigation advantage for one party, as the other did not have the knowledge or infrastructure to proceed given the COVID-19 pandemic.5

To discuss your unique situation amidst COVID-19, talk to Terrance G. Sheppard or a member of our Family Law team. Request your free 30-minute consultation via phone or virtual meeting platform (Skype, Zoom, FaceTime, etc.). 

This is legal information and is not intended to be legal advice.


1 Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 at para 2.

2 Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 at para 3.

3 Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 at para 3.

4 Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 at para 5.

5 Carleton Condominium Corporation No. 476 v Wong, 2020 ONCA 244 at para 8.

Share This Post:

Ask a question about this post.

Any Questions

Recent Blog Posts

Blog Post | Tuesday December 8, 2020

TRADEMARKS: The Perspective of the Average Consumer

Authored by: Marc J. Belliveau Posted in: Business Law

In a court of law, a judge must often assess a person’s act or omission against a certain legal standard of human conduct to determine whether that person’s behaviour was harmful or unlawful.

Read full article
Blog Post | Tuesday December 8, 2020

Who’s liable for a dog attack?

Authored by: Shafic A. Khouri Authored by: David S.R. Parker Posted in: Personal Injury

If your dog does injure someone, then you could be required to compensate that person for those injuries.

Read full article
Blog Post | Friday November 20, 2020

Manitoba Required to Expand their Definition of Parent

Authored by: Terrance G. Sheppard Posted in: Family Law

The Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench declared that the current definition of “parent” and related provisions in Manitoba’s Family Maintenance Act violate the equality rights guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Read full article