A civil appeal is a formal process through which a party to a non-criminal lawsuit requests that a higher court review the decision of a lower court. Unlike at trial, where the judge or jury assesses witnesses and evidence firsthand, an appeal typically revolves around legal arguments made through written submissions (factums) and brief oral advocacy. The primary question for the appellate court is whether the trial judge made a legal or factual error that materially affected the outcome of the case.
Civil appeals serve several vital functions. First, they provide a structured mechanism for error correction, ensuring that parties have a way to challenge mistakes in the application or interpretation of the law at the trial level. If a judge has misunderstood a statute, applied the wrong legal test, or otherwise erred in a way that affects the outcome, the appellate court can step in and rectify that mistake.
Second, appeals foster the development of the law. By reviewing and deciding cases, appellate courts refine or clarify legal principles and set precedents that guide lower courts in future disputes. This process strengthens the legal framework by filling gaps, resolving conflicts in prior decisions, and bringing clarity to unsettled legal questions.
Finally, civil appeals play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and consistency across the judicial system. When flawed rulings can be examined and potentially overturned, litigants have confidence that they will receive a just result. This consistency reinforces public trust in the courts and underscores the principle that similar cases should be treated alike, promoting predictability and cohesion throughout the legal process.
Civil appeals take on several different forms, each with its own procedural requirements. In some cases, a party has the right to appeal a final judgment as of right, which means no special permission from the court is necessary. These are often decisions that resolve all or most of the substantive issues in the case and finalize the rights of the parties. In other instances—particularly when the order at issue is interlocutory or deals with preliminary matters—the appealing party must seek leave (or permission) before the court will agree to review the decision. Courts typically reserve leave to appeal for situations where an error is significant or the legal question raised is of broader importance.
Additionally, a responding party may feel that the original judgment contained separate or additional errors that were not addressed by the appellant. In such circumstances, the respondent can file a cross-appeal, effectively asking the appellate court to correct different aspects of the lower court’s ruling. Through these various appeal pathways—as of right, with leave, or via cross-appeals—the appellate system ensures that both sides have an opportunity to raise concerns about how the law was applied or interpreted, fostering thorough scrutiny of trial-level judgments.
In Ontario, civil appeals can arise out of decisions by the Superior Court of Justice, the Small Claims Court, or various specialized tribunals. Generally, the path you take will depend on the nature of the dispute, the legislation governing your case, and the level of court or tribunal that issued the initial decision.
Jurisdiction: Hears appeals from the Superior Court of Justice in certain civil matters, typically where the amount in dispute falls below a specific threshold, or where the order appealed from is interlocutory. It also hears appeals from the Small Claims Court above certain monetary limits.
Panel Composition: The Divisional Court usually sits in panels of one or three judges, depending on the complexity and importance of the appeal.
Leave to Appeal: Some appeals to the Divisional Court require leave (permission) if the matter involves procedural or interlocutory rulings.
Highest Court in Ontario: The Court of Appeal reviews decisions from the Superior Court and Divisional Court that meet the thresholds for appellate intervention.
Three-Judge Panel (Typically): Most appeals are heard by a panel of three judges, though more judges may sit if the case involves issues of significant public importance or conflicts in the law.
Precedent-Setting Role: Rulings of the Court of Appeal for Ontario are binding on lower courts across the province unless overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Nation’s Highest Court: Parties can sometimes appeal from the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the SCC, but most such appeals require leave to appeal from the Supreme Court itself.
Public Importance Criterion: The SCC focuses on cases that raise issues of national significance or present unsettled points of law.
Final vs. Interlocutory Orders
One of the first questions to ask is whether the decision you wish to appeal is final or interlocutory. A final order disposes of the case entirely or deals with a substantial part of it—such as a judgment that grants damages or injunctive relief—allowing you to appeal as of right in many circumstances. In contrast, an interlocutory order addresses preliminary or procedural matters, including discovery disputes or evidentiary rulings, and typically requires leave (special permission) to appeal. Appellate courts impose this permission requirement to discourage excessive interruptions in litigation and to ensure that only significant issues reach appeal before the matter is fully resolved at trial.
Practical Considerations Before Filing
Beyond the nature of the order, it is wise to assess the overall viability of an appeal. You should first determine whether there is a strong basis in law or evidence to challenge the decision, focusing on whether there is a clear legal error or a factual mistake serious enough to affect the outcome. Next, consider the financial implications, since appellate proceedings often involve substantial legal fees and potential cost awards if you are unsuccessful. You should also realistically gauge how the appeals process could impact your personal or professional life, recognizing that it can prolong litigation, introduce added stress, and divert time and resources from other matters. Finally, think about your likelihood of success, bearing in mind that appellate courts usually defer to the trial judge’s factual findings unless there is a palpable and overriding error.
Jurisdictional Constraints and Choice of Forum
The route your appeal follows can vary based on statutory requirements and monetary thresholds. For instance, an appeal from the Small Claims Court may be heard in the Divisional Court if it meets certain dollar criteria, whereas higher-value judgments from the Superior Court often head directly to the Court of Appeal. Certain statutes may also specify a particular forum or stipulate that you must bring an initial appeal or review in the Divisional Court before proceeding further. Understanding these jurisdictional rules ensures that you file in the correct court, aligning your strategy with the procedural framework and avoiding costly missteps.
Filing Deadlines
In Ontario, civil appeals must generally be filed within 30 days from the date the judgment or order is entered, a rule set out in the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act. This timeframe can shift depending on the nature of the dispute and any governing legislation. For instance, certain specialized statutes might impose a 15-day or even 10-day limit for filing an appeal, while others—especially in the administrative law context—might permit 45 days or more. Missing the prescribed deadline usually means forfeiting your right to appeal. Although it is sometimes possible to seek an extension of time by demonstrating a compelling reason for the delay, courts rarely grant these motions. Applicants must show they had a good-faith intention to appeal within the original timeframe, that no significant prejudice will result from the delay, and that the proposed appeal has at least some merit.
Leave to Appeal (Permission to Appeal)
Not all decisions can be appealed automatically. Where the order you wish to challenge is interlocutory or otherwise requires special permission, you must bring a motion for leave to appeal. This motion is filed in the appropriate appellate court and must establish that the appeal raises a legal issue of broad importance, presents a credible error in law, or has a reasonable prospect of success. Courts use these criteria to screen out matters that do not warrant the time and resources of a full appeal. Even the process of seeking leave to appeal may have tight deadlines, sometimes as short as the standard 30-day period or even less for certain types of orders. If permission is granted, you proceed to the regular appeals process; if it is denied, there is no right to move forward unless another statute or rule provides a secondary route. Meticulous preparation and persuasive arguments are therefore crucial at this early stage, as a successful motion for leave determines whether your appeal will ultimately be heard on its merits.
Errors of Law
Appellate courts pay particular attention to errors that involve legal principles rather than purely factual matters. One of the most common issues is the misinterpretation of statutes or case law, where a trial judge might have misconstrued the meaning of legislative provisions or misunderstood binding precedent. Another potential error arises when the judge applies the wrong legal test, failing to follow established jurisprudence and thereby deciding the case on the basis of an incorrect analytical framework. In addition, if the judge misstated or misapplied the applicable burden of proof—such as the “balance of probabilities” standard in civil matters—this can form a valid ground of appeal because it impacts how evidence and testimony were weighed or assessed.
Errors of Fact
While appellate courts are often reluctant to intervene in factual findings, they will do so if presented with a palpable and overriding error. This typically involves a conclusion that is plainly wrong or lacks any reasonable support in the trial record. Sometimes, the trial judge may have ignored or unjustifiably dismissed crucial evidence, thus undermining the entire foundation of the decision. In other cases, there may be a misapprehension of the facts so fundamental that it affected how the judge understood the core issues in the case. Because appellate courts believe that trial judges are best positioned to assess witness credibility and evidence firsthand, factual errors must be exceptionally clear to prompt reversal.
Mixed Questions of Fact and Law
In many appeals, disputed issues blend both factual and legal elements. When a trial judge bases their decision on an erroneous factual matrix, it can distort the application of the correct legal principles. Although appellate courts typically defer to findings grounded in the trial record, they will intervene if the legal analysis was fundamentally flawed by a misapplication of the law to those facts. Demonstrating that the lower court erred in this respect often requires showing that the judge’s factual determinations, even if plausible on their face, led to a legal conclusion that deviates from established precedent or principles.
Procedural Irregularities
Beyond mistakes tied to law and fact, grounds of appeal can also arise from procedural shortcomings. A party may claim they were denied procedural fairness if they did not receive sufficient notice of trial, were improperly barred from presenting evidence, or believe the trial judge displayed bias. Likewise, if the court that rendered the decision lacked jurisdiction—meaning it had no legal authority to resolve the dispute—this fundamental error can invalidate the entire proceeding. Procedural errors can be just as critical as errors of law or fact, since they strike at the heart of a fair and legitimate hearing.
Notice of Appeal (or Motion for Leave to Appeal)
A civil appeal begins with the Notice of Appeal, which formally commences the appellate process. This document must clearly specify the decision being appealed, the alleged errors, and the relief being sought—such as a reversal, modification, or a new trial. In situations where an appeal is not automatic, you must instead bring a motion for leave, outlining why the court should allow the appeal to proceed. Regardless of whether it is a Notice or a motion for leave, the document must be served on all relevant parties and filed with the correct court registry within strict timelines.
Appeal Record and Transcripts
Once the appeal is underway, the appellant compiles the Appeal Record. This contains essential documents from the lower court, including pleadings, orders, reasons for judgment, and significant exhibits that shaped the trial outcome. If the grounds of appeal focus on factual or evidentiary errors, transcripts of witness testimony or oral rulings become vital. These transcripts provide a complete picture of what occurred at trial and are often indispensable when assessing whether the trial judge’s factual findings merit appellate intervention.
Factums and Written Arguments
Written submissions—known as factums—are the heart of any appeal. The appellant’s factum explains precisely why the lower court’s decision should be overturned or varied, pointing to errors in law or fact and citing relevant statutes and case law. In response, the respondent’s factum defends the original judgment, arguing that the trial judge acted correctly and that no reversible error exists. An optional reply factum may follow if the appellant wishes to address significant new issues raised by the respondent. These documents must be carefully organized and persuasive, as appellate judges rely heavily on them when evaluating the case.
Book of Authorities
Alongside the factums, each party files a book of authorities that compiles the statutes, regulations, and judicial decisions relied upon in the written submissions. By making it easy for the appellate panel to cross-reference these materials, the book of authorities ensures that the court can efficiently consult all the legal sources that underpin each side’s arguments.
Pre-Hearing Motions (If Necessary)
Before the hearing date, either party may bring additional motions. A motion to stay execution might request that enforcement of the lower court’s order be paused until the appeal is resolved. Conversely, a motion to quash can seek to dismiss the appeal at an early stage if it lacks merit or was filed out of time. In other instances, motions for directions clarify procedural uncertainties, such as deadlines for filing materials or the scope of documents to be included in the appeal.
Oral Hearing
On the day of the hearing, both parties present concise oral arguments to a panel of appellate judges. Court time is typically limited, so each side must focus on the core legal or factual issues. The judges may interrupt to ask questions or challenge counsel’s interpretation of the record, and effective preparation is key to addressing these inquiries on the spot. Often, the court reserves its decision, delivering written reasons weeks or even months after the hearing has concluded.
Decision and Possible Remedies
Once the appellate court has fully considered the materials and arguments, it issues a judgment. The court may dismiss the appeal if no reversible error is found, or it may allow the appeal by reversing or varying the lower court’s order. In some cases, the judges will order a new trial if they conclude that procedural or factual errors were so significant that the matter should be re-heard. The successful party often receives a costs award, meaning that a portion of their legal fees and expenses is recoverable from the losing side.
Correctness Standard
When an appeal focuses on pure questions of law, the court applies what is known as the correctness standard. Under this approach, the appellate court considers the legal issue de novo, giving no deference to the trial judge’s interpretation. By conducting its own assessment of the law—whether it involves interpreting statutes, applying precedents, or outlining legal tests—the appellate court ensures that foundational legal principles remain consistent across the judicial system. This consistency reinforces the predictability of outcomes and underpins the authority of case law, allowing litigants to rely on established doctrine when formulating their arguments.
Palpable and Overriding Error Standard
In contrast, issues tied to factual determinations are reviewed on a palpable and overriding error standard. Trial judges enjoy a considerable advantage in weighing evidence, assessing witness credibility, and forming impressions of testimony. As a result, the appellate court will only intervene if the factual finding in question is plainly wrong or lacks any reasonable basis in the evidence. Moreover, this error must be so significant that it affected the overall outcome of the case. The rationale behind this deference is that trial judges observe the nuances of testimony firsthand, making them best equipped to decide factual matters unless their conclusions are clearly unjustified.
Mixed Questions of Fact and Law
Many appeals involve a blend of factual and legal elements, commonly referred to as mixed questions of fact and law. Here, the reviewing court typically defers to the trial judge’s findings unless it appears that the legal component of the issue was incorrectly applied or that the underlying factual findings were palpably wrong. The goal is to ensure that a trial judge’s factual determinations remain respected while still maintaining the uniform application of legal rules. If the appellate court concludes that the lower court’s reasoning process was illogical or fundamentally inconsistent with the record, it may intervene to correct the resulting legal error.
By understanding which standard of review applies, litigants and their counsel can tailor their appellate arguments more effectively. Demonstrating that a dispute presents a pure question of law often leads to a stricter level of scrutiny from the appellate bench, whereas appealing factual matters requires a showing of clear and significant mistakes at trial. This nuanced framework underscores how vital it is to categorize each ground of appeal properly before bringing the case forward.
When an appellate court has fully reviewed the trial record and considered the arguments from both sides, it will render a decision that can take several forms. First, the court may uphold the decision of the lower court, leaving the original judgment intact. In such cases, the appellant—having lost the appeal—may be responsible for paying the respondent’s legal costs, as courts often require the unsuccessful party to cover a portion of the prevailing party’s expenses.
Alternatively, the court may decide that the trial judge committed an error serious enough to warrant reversing or varying the judgment. This can involve adjusting damage awards, removing or altering certain remedies, or modifying orders related to injunctions or other forms of relief. In doing so, the appellate court tailors a solution that corrects the mistakes found at trial, ensuring the outcome aligns with the correct application of law and the factual record.
Another possibility is that the appellate court concludes the trial process was so flawed that the issues were not properly or fairly decided. Under these circumstances, the court may order a new trial, sending the case back to the lower court for a fresh hearing. This remedy is typically reserved for significant procedural or substantive errors, such as rulings that impaired one party’s ability to present or rebut evidence.
In some instances, the appellate court may opt for other forms of relief that are specifically tailored to address the unique facts or legal questions in dispute. For example, the court could grant injunctive relief, issue a declaratory judgment clarifying the parties’ rights or obligations, or fashion any order necessary to achieve a just result. This broad discretion enables appellate courts to rectify errors in a way that is both fair and in keeping with established legal principles.
Motions to Extend Time
When a party misses an appeal deadline, they may apply for an extension of time. To succeed, the applicant must typically show they had a genuine intention to appeal within the original timeframe, provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, demonstrate that the proposed appeal carries at least some merit, and confirm that granting the extension would not unduly prejudice the respondent. Courts weigh these factors carefully to ensure that leniency does not undermine the importance of respecting clear procedural deadlines. If the applicant can establish that justice would be better served by allowing the appeal to proceed late, the court may grant the requested extension.
Motions to Stay Execution
If enforcing a trial court’s order could cause significant or irreversible harm while the appeal is pending, the appellant may seek a stay of execution. This motion effectively pauses the lower court’s ruling—such as payment of damages or enforcement of an injunction—until the appeal is resolved. In deciding whether to grant a stay, the court evaluates whether the appellant will suffer irreparable harm without one and whether the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo. The public interest and any potential harm to the respondent are also considered, with the court striving to prevent unjust outcomes during the appeal process.
Fresh Evidence Motions
Appellate courts generally base their decisions on the evidence presented at trial, but in rare cases, new or “fresh” evidence may be admitted. The standard for allowing fresh evidence is stringent and is often guided by the Palmer test. Applicants must demonstrate that this new information could not have been discovered through reasonable diligence prior to trial, that it is credible and relevant, and that it could materially affect the outcome of the appeal. Courts are wary of reopening the trial record without a compelling reason, as doing so can prolong litigation and undermine the finality of the trial process.
Motions to Quash
A respondent who believes the appeal is fundamentally flawed may bring a motion to quash. This request can be based on jurisdictional grounds—arguing that the court lacks authority to hear the matter—or on the premise that the appeal is frivolous and clearly has no chance of success. Procedural deficiencies, such as failing to meet filing deadlines or neglecting to serve the other party correctly, can also support a motion to quash. If the court grants the motion, the appeal is dismissed without a full hearing on the merits. This approach ensures that both judicial resources and the parties’ time are not wasted on appeals that do not meet basic procedural or substantive requirements.
Costs in civil appeals generally follow a principle often described as “costs follow the event.” In other words, the losing party is typically required to pay a portion of the successful party’s legal fees and disbursements. The rationale behind this rule is that a winning litigant should not be out of pocket for having to defend a valid position on appeal. Still, the exact amount of costs awarded can vary widely and is subject to the appellate court’s discretion.
Several considerations influence how costs are calculated. The complexity of the issues in dispute can significantly increase legal fees, particularly if the appeal involves voluminous evidence or novel legal questions requiring extensive research. Appellate courts also scrutinize the reasonableness of positions taken by each side; parties who launch unnecessary motions, make frivolous arguments, or otherwise protract the litigation may face higher cost awards. In some instances, a party can achieve partial success on key grounds, leading to an adjusted award that takes into account the mixed outcome of the appeal.
In addition, there are scenarios where a respondent may seek an order for security for costs. This measure is typically requested when there is reason to believe the appellant may not be able to pay a cost award if they lose—for instance, if the appellant resides outside the jurisdiction or appears to have limited financial resources. Should the court grant the request, the appeal may be stayed until the appellant provides the security or a suitable guarantee. This requirement protects the successful party’s ability to recover costs but also ensures that the appellant can still proceed with the appeal if they can meet the financial conditions.
Enforcement of Judgments
Once an appeal is resolved, parties must address any judgments or orders that have been affirmed, varied, or newly imposed. If you are the successful party and the appellate court has awarded damages or otherwise upheld your claim, you may need to take additional steps to enforce or collect on the judgment. This could involve registering the judgment for enforcement, garnishing wages, or conducting other post-judgment procedures at the trial court level. On the other hand, if you are the unsuccessful party, it is important to comply promptly with the terms of the ruling to avoid further legal complications or additional costs. Failure to follow the appellate decision can lead to enforcement actions, which may include interest penalties or further court orders.
Further Appeals
For those considering an even higher level of review, it may be possible to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), especially if the court below was the Court of Appeal for Ontario. However, the SCC only hears cases that raise issues of national or broad legal importance. This means that most appeals will end at the provincial or territorial appellate level. If you decide to pursue leave, you typically have 60 days from the date of the Court of Appeal’s judgment to file your application. Missing this deadline usually forecloses any further recourse. Securing leave to appeal to the SCC is challenging, and applicants must present compelling reasons that the case is of significant public or legal interest.
Settlement During or After the Appeal
In some instances, parties opt to settle either during the appellate process or shortly after the decision is released. Settlement can help avoid mounting legal fees, reduce stress, and bring a faster resolution to the matter. When parties settle during an appeal, they might negotiate smaller payments, structured payment arrangements, or alternative dispute resolution methods. A settlement ends all further litigation once the appeal is formally dismissed by consent, ensuring that neither party can resurrect the case in the future. This finality can be advantageous if the risks, costs, or uncertainties associated with continuing the dispute outweigh the potential benefits of pursuing further legal avenues.
If you believe the lower court judge made an error in your civil case or if you need to uphold a favourable decision challenged by the opposing side, call on Grigoras Law. We proudly represent individuals, businesses, and organizations across Ontario in all manner of civil appeals. Our firm is dedicated to offering:
Disclaimer: The answers provided in this FAQ section are general in nature and should not be relied upon as formal legal advice. Each individual case is unique, and a separate analysis is required to address specific context and fact situations. For comprehensive guidance tailored to your situation, we welcome you to contact our expert team.
In Ontario, the deadline to file a Notice of Appeal in most civil matters is typically 30 days from the date the final judgment or order is issued (or “entered”). This timeframe is set out under the Rules of Civil Procedure. However, certain exceptions can apply. For example, if a specific statute governs your dispute—such as a specialized administrative or regulatory regime—the filing period might be shorter or longer. It is essential to read the legislation that applies to your case or consult with legal counsel to confirm the correct deadline.
If you miss your filing deadline, you may lose the right to appeal altogether. In very limited circumstances, you can bring a motion to extend time, but you must show compelling reasons for your delay and demonstrate that it would be in the interests of justice to allow a late filing. Courts are not always sympathetic to missed deadlines, so it is crucial to move quickly if you plan to appeal.
While 30 days may seem like a generous period, preparing a strong Notice of Appeal often requires thorough review of the trial record and a clear articulation of your grounds of appeal. Gathering necessary documents and transcripts can be time-consuming, especially if the trial was lengthy. Securing legal advice early ensures you understand the procedural steps required and have adequate time to prepare. If you are uncertain about timelines, it is always prudent to consult a lawyer who regularly handles civil appeals, as missing a key deadline could prevent your appeal from ever being heard.
In Ontario, not all judgments are automatically appealable. While you may appeal certain final orders or judgments “as of right,” other orders—particularly interlocutory (or interim) decisions—require permission from the court, known as “leave to appeal.” Determining whether an order is final or interlocutory can be more nuanced than it sounds. If an order disposes of the entire matter or a substantial portion of it, it is typically final and does not require leave. Conversely, if the order deals with procedural questions or interim remedies, leave is generally required.
When leave is necessary, you must file a motion for leave to appeal within strict timelines (often within the same 30-day window or even shorter, depending on the nature of the order). In this motion, you must persuade the appellate court that your proposed appeal raises significant legal questions, has a reasonable chance of success, or is otherwise in the interests of justice to be heard. Courts do not grant leave lightly, since they want to prevent unnecessary delay and ensure appellate resources are reserved for cases with serious legal implications.
The process for seeking leave usually involves preparing a detailed motion record that includes the order you wish to appeal, relevant materials from the lower court, and a factum (written argument) explaining why leave should be granted. If the court agrees, you then proceed with a standard appeal. If the court denies leave, you cannot appeal further on that issue. Because securing leave to appeal can be a critical turning point, it is wise to consult an appellate lawyer who can assess the strength of your arguments and present them in the most compelling way possible.
In some cases, reputational damage and loss of trust can have long-lasting effects, impacting professional relationships and business opportunities. Legal proceedings can be complex and costly, making it crucial to seek experienced legal counsel to navigate these issues effectively. Furthermore, breaching confidentiality can lead to a breakdown in business relationships and could result in additional legal claims such as breach of contract or fiduciary duty. It is essential to understand the full scope of potential consequences to mitigate risks and respond appropriately.
In most civil appeals, the appellate court does not re-try the case, call new witnesses, or hear fresh evidence. Instead, appeals focus on whether the trial judge or lower court made an error—either in applying the law or in making factual findings that were not reasonably supported by the record. Appellate courts typically review the existing transcripts and exhibits from the trial to assess whether significant mistakes occurred that warrant reversing or modifying the decision. The rationale behind this approach is that the trial judge has the advantage of hearing live testimony, observing witness demeanor, and considering evidence in real time. Appellate courts usually give deference to factual findings unless they are clearly wrong (palpable and overriding error).
However, in rare circumstances, an appellate court may allow fresh evidence through what is often called a “motion to admit new evidence.” Under Ontario law, and guided by well-established legal tests (like the Palmer test), you must demonstrate that this evidence was not discoverable at trial with reasonable diligence, that it is highly relevant, and that it could very likely affect the outcome of the appeal. This is a high bar to clear. Moreover, even if the new evidence meets these criteria, courts remain cautious about undermining the trial process and opening the door to endless re-litigation. If you believe there is essential evidence that was overlooked at trial, it is crucial to speak with your appellate counsel early to gauge whether it can be introduced on appeal. More often than not, a civil appeal is confined to the record as it stood at trial, emphasizing the importance of preparing a thorough case from the outset.
The length of a civil appeal can range from a few months to well over a year, depending on multiple factors. First and foremost, the complexity of the underlying trial record has a significant impact. If your trial spanned several weeks with dozens of witnesses, transcripts alone can run into thousands of pages, requiring considerable time for review by both the appellant and the respondent. Appellate courts also have busy dockets, and scheduling a hearing depends on court availability, the urgency of the matter, and how promptly all parties complete their required filings.
In Ontario, once you file your Notice of Appeal, you generally have specific timelines for serving and filing your Appeal Record, transcripts, and factum. The respondent then has a set period to file their materials. Delays can arise if either side requests extensions or if motions (such as a stay of the original order, a motion to admit fresh evidence, or a motion for directions) must be heard along the way. Each of these procedural steps adds to the overall timeframe.
Moreover, after the oral hearing, the court may reserve judgment, meaning it will issue a written decision at a later date rather than immediately. Depending on the complexity of the legal questions, the panel may take weeks or even months to finalize and release their reasons for decision. Such deliberation reflects the appellate court’s commitment to ensuring that the law is accurately applied and that thorough analysis guides every outcome.
Because of these variables, it is difficult to predict exactly how long a specific appeal will last. Consulting with an appellate lawyer can give you a better estimate based on factors like the volume of evidence, the nature of the legal issues, and any potential procedural hurdles that may arise. Ultimately, the best approach is to stay proactive, meet all deadlines, and maintain clear communication with the court and opposing counsel to minimize avoidable delays.
If you lose your appeal, the appellate court will typically confirm or “uphold” the original judgment or order from the lower court. In practical terms, this means you must comply with the initial ruling—such as paying damages, changing business practices if injunctive relief was granted, or accepting whatever relief was awarded to the opposing party. You may also be responsible for the opposing party’s costs associated with the appeal, which can include legal fees and disbursements. The exact amount is determined by the court and often follows the principle that “costs follow the event,” meaning the unsuccessful party pays at least a portion of the successful party’s costs.
In some cases, an unsuccessful appellant can seek leave to appeal to a higher court, such as the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC). However, the SCC grants permission to appeal only if the case raises issues of national importance or unsettled law, which means that most appeals do not proceed beyond the provincial or territorial court of appeal. Additionally, the SCC typically hears a relatively small number of civil appeals each year, and the threshold to obtain leave is high. Your lawyer will help assess whether your case meets the criteria and prepare a leave application if warranted. If leave is denied, there are usually no further avenues within the Canadian court system to challenge the appellate decision.
Losing an appeal is undoubtedly disappointing and can have significant financial or personal consequences. Despite the outcome, it may still be worthwhile to consult with your legal team on any remaining options—whether that means exploring settlement negotiations, adjusting your business strategies to comply with the judgment, or even seeking legislative or administrative remedies if applicable. Each situation is unique, and understanding the post-appeal landscape is critical for moving forward in a strategic and informed manner.
our team of experienced lawyers are at your service
