In Animal Justice v. Ontario (Attorney General), the Court allowed the appeal from the application judge’s finding that ss. 9 and 12 of the Regulation under the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020 infringed the respondents’ freedom of expression under subsection 2(b) of the Charter. This Regulation circumscribes the ability of animal rights activists to use false pretenses to gain access to farms in order to document and publicize animal mistreatment. The Court held that the application judge misapprehended evidence regarding the legislation’s purpose, incorrectly characterized the nature of the freedom of the expression claim, and interpreted the whistleblower exception too narrowly. Further, after applying the Oakes test, the Court concluded that any limits on expressive freedom were minimally impairing and proportionate to the legislation’s objectives of preventing trespass and protecting biosecurity.

Wishing everyone an enjoyable weekend.

John Polyzogopoulos
Blaney McMurtry LLP
416.593.2953 Email

Table of Contents

Civil Decisions

Animal Justice v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 380

Keywords: Public Law, Agriculture, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Expression, Oakes Test, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss 2(b), Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 9, O. Reg. 701/20, Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, Irwin Toy v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, 2024 SCC 13,  Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 322, Jacob v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 648,  R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608,  R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, R. v. Safarzadeh‑Markhali, 2016 SCC 14,  Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20,  Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1,  R. v. Brar, 2024 ONCA 254,  R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761, Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668,  Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69, R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, Baier v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 31, R. v. Gibson, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 484 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), Lee v. Hersh, [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 1138 (S.C.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578,  Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259, McKitty (Litigation guardian of) v. Hayani, 2019 ONCA 805, R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, Ruth Sullivan, The Construction of Statutes, 7th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2022), The Nature of Legislative Intent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, “Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights,” (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2023 Reissue), Andrew Botterell et al., Fridman’s The Law of Torts in Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2020)

Short Civil Decisions

Monteith & Sutherland Limited v. Novex Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 384

Keywords: Contracts, Insurance, Coverage, Duty to Cooperate, Ruddell v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 328

Derenzis v. Ontario, 2026 ONCA 385

Keywords: Administrative Law, Institutional Bias, Constitutional Law, Charter Claims, Contracts, Insurance, Coverage, Statutory Accident Benefits, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Non-Party Production, Relevance, Materiality, Privilege, Deliberative Secrecy, Fresh Evidence, Costs

Davis v. Ng, 2026 ONCA 387

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Trials, Adjournments, Documents, Disclosure, Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14

M.B. v. The Basilian Fathers of Toronto, 2026 ONCA 388

Keywords: Torts, Assault, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural Justice, Jurisdiction, Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston, 2011 ONCA 728, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17

Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONCA 393

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Residential Tenancies, Enforcement, Eviction, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Panel Review

Newton v. Grillo, 2026 ONCA 396

Keywords:Family Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Transfer, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 19(1)(a.1), 6(1)(b)(i), 110(1), Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), Bernard v. Fuhgeh, 2020 ONCA 529, Whaling v. Whaling, 2025 ONCA 173, Dunnington v. 656956 Ontario Inc. (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 124 (Div. Ct.)

CIVIL DECISIONS

Animal Justice v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 380

[Roberts, Miller and Zarnett JJ.A.]

Counsel:

R. Basu, Y. Ranganathan and E. Guilbault, for the appellant

K. Mitchell, A. Pester, A. Gonsalves and F. Schumann, for the respondent

A. Beddoes for the respondents

Keywords: Public Law, Agriculture, Constitutional Law, Freedom of Expression, Oakes Test, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss 2(b), Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act, 2020, S.O. 2020, c. 9, O. Reg. 701/20, Reference re Bill 30, An Act to Amend the Education Act (Ont.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1148, Irwin Toy v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927, Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., 2005 SCC 62, R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103, Société des casinos du Québec inc. v. Association des cadres de la Société des casinos du Québec, 2024 SCC 13,  Westcoast Energy Inc. v. Canada (National Energy Board), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 322, Jacob v. Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA 648,  R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608,  R. v. Sharma, 2022 SCC 39, R. v. Safarzadeh‑Markhali, 2016 SCC 14,  Canada (Attorney General) v. Whaling, 2014 SCC 20,  Frank v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 SCC 1,  R. v. Brar, 2024 ONCA 254,  R. v. Heywood, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761, Bracken v. Fort Erie (Town), 2017 ONCA 668,  Toronto (City) v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2021 SCC 34, R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697, R. v. Khawaja, 2012 SCC 69, R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16, Baier v. Alberta, 2007 SCC 31, R. v. Gibson, [1976] 6 W.W.R. 484 (Sask. Dist. Ct.), Lee v. Hersh, [1993] B.C.W.L.D. 1138 (S.C.), McAteer v. Canada (Attorney General), 2014 ONCA 578,  Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1038, Hillier v. Ontario, 2025 ONCA 259, McKitty (Litigation guardian of) v. Hayani, 2019 ONCA 805, R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731, Ruth Sullivan, The Construction of Statutes, 7th ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2022), The Nature of Legislative Intent (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), Halsbury’s Laws of Canada, “Constitutional Law – Charter of Rights,” (Toronto: LexisNexis Canada, 2023 Reissue), Andrew Botterell et al., Fridman’s The Law of Torts in Canada, 4th ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2020)

facts:

The Ontario Legislature enacted the Security from Trespass and Protecting Food Safety Act (the “Act”) and the Minister as defined in the Act made an associated regulation (the “Regulation”). The stated purpose of the legislation is to combat threats to agricultural production and farm operations posed by farm trespassers, predominantly including those who pose as farm workers but are covertly documenting animal treatment, subverting farm operations or who otherwise pose a risk to agricultural food supply.

Animal Justice and two individual applicants (collectively, the “Respondents”) brought forth a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) with respect to the Act. They contended that the actual purpose of the legislation is something different than its stated purpose. The Respondents argued that the true purpose is, at least in part, to prevent documentation of animal mistreatment and frustrate attempts to bring mistreatment to the attention of the public. They argued that this purpose is a direct attack on the freedom of expression rights pursuant to section 2(b) of the Charter of those who seek to publicize mistreatment of farm animals.

The application judge accepted the Respondents’ claims that ss. 5(4) and 6(2) of the Act, which prohibit using false pretences to obtain access to a farm and farm animals, when read in conjunction with ss. 9-12 of the Regulation, limits freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter in a manner that is not justified and is therefore unconstitutional.

The application judge further held that the parts of the Regulation carving out exceptions for journalists and whistleblowers in ss. 11(1)(d)-(e), 12(1)(c)-(d), 12(2)(a)(i)-(ii) and 12(2)(c) also violated the Charter.

Ontario (the “Appellant”) appealed the application judge’s order with respect to ss. 9 and 12(1)(d) of the Regulation.

issues:

1. Did the application judge err in law or in fact by holding that one of the purposes of the Legislation was to reduce or eliminate exposés?

2. Did the application judge err in law in finding that s. 9 of the Regulation infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter?

3. Did the application judge err in law in concluding that s. 12(1)(d) of the Regulation restricts or compels speech in a manner that infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter?

4. Did the application judge err in law in holding that the limits on s. 2(b) rights established by s. 9 or s. 12(1)(d) of the Regulation were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter?

holding:

Appeal allowed.

reasoning:

1. Yes. The application judge erred by holding that one of the purposes of the Legislation was to reduce or eliminate exposés. He reached this conclusion from evidence given by S. Duff, a policy director with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs and a drafter of the legislation. However, the application judge misapprehended the evidence. S. Duff never stated that the purpose was to restrict or eliminate undercover exposés and his evidence did not support the inference drawn by the application judge. Neither was the inference supported by a reading of the legislative text.

2. Yes. The application judge erred in finding that s. 9 of the Regulation infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter. The Court reasoned that s. 9 of the Regulation prevents the Respondents from accessing the property of others without informed consent, but they remain unrestricted in how they choose to communicate their messages about farm practices to the public. This may impair the Respondents’ ability to gather the type of evidence they believe would be especially persuasive to the intended audience. However, the Court holds that the freedom of expression does not guarantee conditions most optimal for the successful reception of one’s message.

3. Yes. The application judge erred in concluding that s. 12(1)(d) of the Regulation restricts or compels speech in a manner that infringes s. 2(b) of the Charter. The whistleblower exception in ss. 12(1)(a)-(c) provides that a false statement shall not be considered to have been obtained under false pretenses if the person who gave the false statement is an employee of the farm or facility, the false statement does not lead to harm to the animals or others, and as a result of the false statement and the consent obtained, the person “was able to obtain information or evidence of harm to a farm animal” or harm with respect to food safety or some other individual or some other illegal activity. Additionally, s. 12(1)(d) must be satisfied, which provides:

The person who gave the false statement discloses the information or evidence described in clause (c) to a police officer or other authority as soon as practicable after obtaining the information or evidence.

The application judge reasoned that the provision not only compelled a statement to an authority but also dictated the timing of the expression: “as soon as practicable”. The application judge accepted that by having to disclose more or less immediately, a person collecting the information would have to prematurely end an investigation, thus weakening the force of the exposé and making it easier for a farm to counter the allegation with an explanation that the recorded behaviour was an isolated act of a rogue employee.

The Court held that the application judge interpreted the provision too narrowly. Section 12(1)(d) does not rule against making the report anonymously, which limits the application judge’s concern above.

4. Yes. The application judge erred in holding that the limits on s. 2(b) rights established by ss. 9 or 12(1)(d) of the Regulation were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Under the first branch of the Oakes test, the application judge characterized the purpose of the legislation as “preventing trespass, protecting animal safety, protecting biosecurity of the food supply chain, protecting those working with animals and preventing the adverse economic effects that these risks can create.” The Court agreed with this characterization and accepted that this purpose was both pressing and substantial.

The second branch of the Oakes test is to determine whether there was proportionality between the Act’s objective and the means chosen to achieve it. This step engages three inquiries: (1) rational connection, (2) minimal impairment, and (3) proportionate effects.

At the rational connection stage, the application judge found that there is a rational connection between the prevention of the spread of pathogens within or between farms and restrictions against trespass. The Court agreed.

Next, at the minimal impairment stage, the application judge held that the s. 9 restriction on false statements is not minimally impairing as it captured persons who would pose no threat to biosecurity of a farm like those using false pretences to gain employment on a farm to conduct an exposé. However, the Court disagreed and held that it was minimally impairing. The Court reasoned that farm operators are entitled to know whom they are dealing with so they can assess what risks they are willing to accept. The Court found s.12 was also minimally impairing for the same reasons outlined under Issue #3 above.

Lastly, at the proportionality stage, the Court found that the benefits of ss. 9 and 12 outweighed the harm to the people whose actions have been limited. The Court found that the production of exposés about the treatment of farm animals to be high value expression. However, given the minimal degree of impairment with the production of this expression, compared against the benefits of the legislation, it reasoned that the limits placed on the Respondents’ exercise of their freedom of expression are proportionate to the public goods served by the legislation.

SHORT CIVIL DECISIONS

Monteith & Sutherland Limited v. Novex Insurance Company, 2026 ONCA 384

[Huscroft, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

M. Barrett, for the appellant

C. Dolgay and M. Falco, for the respondent

Keywords:Contracts, Insurance, Coverage, Duty to Cooperate, Ruddell v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 ONCA 328

Derenzis v. Ontario, 2026 ONCA 385

[Roberts, Coroza and Rahman JJ.A.]

Counsel:

S. Keenan and V. Crystal, for the appellant

J. Campisi and A. Ismail, for the respondents L.D. and J.D.S.

S. Kissick and P. Ryan, for the respondent His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario

A. R. Camporese, for the respondents Gore Mutual Insurance Company, H. Sevcik, J. Ferrito, S. Beecraft, J. Bethune and K. Jones by his Litigation Administrator C. R. Jones

Keywords:Administrative Law, Institutional Bias, Constitutional Law, Charter Claims, Contracts, Insurance, Coverage, Statutory Accident Benefits, Civil Procedure, Evidence, Non-Party Production, Relevance, Materiality, Privilege, Deliberative Secrecy, Fresh Evidence, Costs

Davis v. Ng, 2026 ONCA 387

[Huscroft, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

N. Searles and T. Shea, for the appellant

L. Tucker and P. Shah, for the respondent

Keywords: Civil Procedure, Trials, Adjournments, Documents, Disclosure, Rules of Civil Procedure, Martin v. Sansome, 2014 ONCA 14

M.B. v. The Basilian Fathers of Toronto, 2026 ONCA 388

[Huscroft, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

J. K. Downing and J. Masterman, for the appellant

O. Sabo, for the respondent

Keywords: Torts, Assault, Civil Procedure, Procedural and Natural Justice, Jurisdiction, Hart v. Roman Catholic Episcopal Corp. of the Diocese of Kingston, 2011 ONCA 728, Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC 17

Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings, 2026 ONCA 393

[Huscroft, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

C.L., acting in person

S. Toole, for the responding party

Keywords: Contracts, Real Property, Residential Tenancies, Enforcement, Eviction, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Stay Pending Appeal, Panel Review

Newton v. Grillo, 2026 ONCA 396

[Roberts, Dawe and Wilson JJ.A.]

Counsel:

E.A.L.N., acting in person

M.L.G., acting in person

Keywords: Family Law, Civil Procedure, Appeals, Jurisdiction, Transfer, Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, ss. 19(1)(a.1), 6(1)(b)(i), 110(1), Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.), Bernard v. Fuhgeh, 2020 ONCA 529, Whaling v. Whaling, 2025 ONCA 173, Dunnington v. 656956 Ontario Inc. (1992), 9 O.R. (3d) 124 (Div. Ct.)