Appeals in Ontario
Orientation on timelines, standards of review, and relief available in Ontario appeal courts. Jump to section
The review of lower court decisions by a higher court to correct errors, address unfairness, and ensure the proper development and application of the law.
Grigoras Law acts for appellants and respondents in civil and commercial matters across Ontario. We review the record and reasons with fresh eyes, identify appealable errors, and give candid advice on prospects, timelines, and cost. When an appeal is warranted, we prepare focused records and facta, bring clear oral advocacy, and handle related motions (such as stays or leave) where required. Whether you aim to vary, set aside, or defend a result, we deliver disciplined, persuasive appellate advocacy in the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal.
Orientation on timelines, standards of review, and relief available in Ontario appeal courts. Jump to section
We assess errors of law, fact, and mixed questions; match arguments to the governing standards. Jump to section
Candid screening on merits, timing, and costs to decide if an appeal is the right step. Jump to section
Court of Appeal vs. Divisional Court, leave requirements, and monetary/subject-matter thresholds. Jump to section
Notices, transcripts, records/appeal books, facta, motions, and oral hearing preparation. Jump to section
Legal error, procedural unfairness, misapprehension of evidence, or palpable & overriding error. Jump to section
Appeals in Ontario’s civil justice system allow parties dissatisfied with lower court judgments to seek review from a higher court, safeguarding the consistency and fairness of the legal process. Through an appeal, individuals or businesses can challenge errors of law, significant misapprehensions of fact, or incorrect applications of legal principles at trial. An appellate court does not re-try the dispute from scratch; it asks whether the proceedings met essential legal standards and whether the result is defensible on the record. Reversing or adjusting a decision can restore a right to compensation, clarify liability, or set guidance that shapes future cases.
In Ontario, the structure of civil appeals varies with the court of origin, the amount at stake, and the type of order. Some orders require leave to appeal, while many final orders carry a right of appeal. Every stage has strict timelines, filing requirements, and formal steps for preparing the record. Written arguments (factums) lead the panel through the issues, supported by oral submissions. Whether the dispute concerns a modest award or a precedent-setting verdict, working with an Ontario appeal lawyer or experienced appellate counsel in Ontario helps ensure the strategy, timing, and standards of review are handled correctly.
Appeals differ from trials. They focus on mistakes in law, procedure, or fact that impacted the outcome rather than relitigating all evidence. Appellants must show how the judge erred, for example by misapplying a legal test or overlooking key evidence. Respondents defend the ruling and emphasize any deference owed on factual findings. Courts apply correctness to pure legal questions and reasonableness to fact-driven findings. Understanding these standards and writing a persuasive factum are central to any appeal in Ontario.
Ontario civil appeals often come from the Superior Court of Justice and proceed either to the Divisional Court or to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Smaller claims and many interlocutory rulings fall to Divisional Court appeals, while major final orders usually go to the province’s court of appeal. Parties considering Court of Appeal for Ontario appeals should confirm the correct forum at the outset to avoid delay. A party that remains dissatisfied may seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which is granted sparingly for questions of national importance.
The Courts of Justice Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure set out which orders require leave and which carry an appeal as of right. Interim or discretionary orders may require leave, while final judgments generally permit a direct appeal if the notice is filed on time. Choosing correctly between Divisional Court Ontario appeals and the Ontario Court of Appeal can be outcome-determinative, so forum and timing analysis should happen early.
Appeals rely on statutory rules and case law governing legal, factual, and mixed questions. Courts apply a correctness standard to pure questions of law. Factual findings receive deference and will be disturbed only where an error is palpable and overriding. Mixed questions may be treated as legal or factual depending on their character. Successful appellate advocacy aligns each argument with the applicable standard of review.
Appeals also arise in family law, administrative decisions, and class actions. Administrative matters often proceed by judicial review in Ontario, usually in the Divisional Court, and focus on the legality and reasonableness of a tribunal’s decision rather than a full reweighing of evidence. A judicial review application in Ontario has different procedures and remedies than a typical appeal, so it is important to pick the correct route.
Whether to appeal a civil judgment is a practical decision. Appeals take time and money. Counsel reviews the record for clear errors, such as a misinterpretation of a legal principle, failure to consider key evidence, or a procedural misstep that undermined fairness. If the issue turns mainly on credibility or factual inferences, success can be harder because factual findings attract deference. An experienced appeal lawyer in Ontario can assess prospects and identify the strongest grounds.
Ontario imposes strict timelines, often 30 days from the date of the final order or its entry. Missing a deadline can be fatal unless an extension is granted. Appellants must order transcripts where needed, prepare the appeal record, and serve factums within set periods. A stay of enforcement may be sought where immediate compliance would cause irreparable harm, but it requires a separate motion. Some interlocutory orders require permission, so parties should consider whether leave to appeal Divisional Court is required before taking further steps.
The Divisional Court is a branch of the Superior Court of Justice that hears specific statutory appeals, many interlocutory matters, and judicial reviews of administrative decisions. Panels may sit as one or three judges. Determining whether your matter belongs in the Ontario Divisional Court or at the Court of Appeal is crucial to avoid jurisdictional problems.
For significant civil matters, the Ontario Court of Appeal is the province’s highest appellate court. It hears complex commercial disputes, class actions, high-value personal injury awards, and property cases. Its decisions shape the law for Ontario. Parties bringing ONCA appeals should expect rigorous written advocacy, tight timelines, and close attention to standards of review.
A party may apply for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada after a Court of Appeal decision. Leave is rare and typically reserved for questions of national importance or areas where appellate courts conflict. For most Ontario civil matters, the Court of Appeal is the final stop.
Early tasks include assembling the appeal record, which contains the notice of appeal, pleadings, relevant orders, and the reasons for judgment. Where hearings were recorded, transcripts may be essential. The record should be complete but focused. Overloading the panel can obscure the key issues and increase cost.
The factum is the heart of the appeal. The appellant’s factum sets out the background, alleged errors, applicable standards of review, and the remedy sought. It should be concise, well-sourced, and persuasive. The respondent’s factum addresses each ground and defends the result. Strong writing and careful citation often shape the panel’s view before oral argument begins.
Many appeals include a short oral hearing. Counsel summarizes key points, answers questions from the bench, and refers to specific portions of the record. Decisions may be released orally or in writing. Outcomes include affirming the judgment, varying it, or ordering a new trial where errors compromised the result. Costs usually follow the event.
One frequent basis for appeal arises when the trial judge allegedly misapplies or misstates legal principles—be it in interpreting statutes, applying common law doctrines, or giving flawed jury instructions. This category can include ignoring binding precedents, misunderstanding a statutory provision’s scope, or failing to apply the correct legal test for negligence, contract formation, or other claims. The appellate court typically applies a correctness standard to pure law, substituting its own interpretation if it finds the trial judge’s approach wrong. However, if the alleged error straddles law and fact, the panel might show more deference, requiring a demonstration that the judge’s interpretation was clearly unsustainable.
Another ground is that the trial judge made a critical factual error, like ignoring uncontested evidence, misstating witness testimony, or drawing an inference no reasonable fact-finder could reach. Factual findings receive heightened deference because the trial judge observes witness demeanors and direct evidence. An appellant must show the error is palpable and overriding, meaning it’s clearly evident on the record and likely altered the outcome. Minor factual slips that do not affect the result usually do not suffice to justify reversal. This principle keeps appeals from morphing into second trials, ensuring that only truly significant factual missteps lead to intervention.
Where procedural fairness is compromised (like denying a party the chance to cross-examine a witness or ignoring crucial evidence), an appellant can argue that the trial process fell below basic justice standards. If these flaws likely shaped the verdict, the appellate court can order a new trial or direct the lower court to correct the issue. Similarly, if the judge was biased or gave the impression of bias, a successful appeal may follow. Courts remain vigilant about upholding open and fair processes, concluding that outcomes derived from prejudiced or incomplete hearings cannot stand. Even strong factual or legal findings do not salvage a decision marred by fundamental procedural breaches.
Finally, appeals often concern dissatisfaction with damage awards. For personal injury or contract claims, the appellant might assert that the trial judge’s award is unreasonably high or low compared to established guidelines and evidence. An appellate panel typically defers to the trial judge or jury on quantum, reversing or adjusting it only if it is wholly out of proportion or rests on an error like double-counting or ignoring crucial medical or financial proof. This deference keeps the appellate role from overshadowing the trial judge’s vantage in assessing intangible elements like pain and suffering. Nonetheless, if an award stands starkly beyond typical ranges or evidently overlooks relevant factors, the court will step in, recalculating or remitting the matter for reassessment.
Considering an appeal or judicial review? Our Toronto appellate counsel handle matters before the Court of Appeal for Ontario and Divisional Court, including leave motions and applications to set aside or vary interim orders. Clear written advocacy, disciplined strategy, and focused execution.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service