As we do every year, what follows is a short list of, in our opinion, interesting and impactful decisions from the past year. Though those from provincial appellate courts outside Nova Scotia may have limited applicability here, they are interesting nonetheless and you never know when they will be raised here. Though usually a top ten list, this year there are 11, the first being a compilation of Nova Scotia decisions on the duties of lawyers, important for us because they touch on issues we are increasingly seeing in our files.
- Four decisions from Nova Scotia that talk about the duties of lawyers to their clients and the courts:
Umeshappa v. PJ, 2025 NSCA 76 – decision discusses the importance of making sure Courts are provided will all relevant law so that they can properly decided the mater before them, and there is guidance on lawyers providing their own affidavits in matters
Walker v. Walker, 2025 NSCA 16 – In a matter where a represented party has no meaningful adversary, counsel for the represented party must provide a complete, accurate and balanced briefing to the Court, anything less being contrary to the interests of justice
Ural Link Ltd. v. Hennigar Trucking Limited, 2025 NSSC 322 – the Court noted the serious implications for a defendant if an action is started but not served, the Court noting that defendants are entitled to be notified under the Rules of that action and the plaintiff should make reasonable efforts to effect service in a timely manner
Turner-Lienaux v. Townsend, 2025 NSSC 324 – the Court in dismissing the action concluded that it was a collateral attack on a prior order and an abuse of process. The Court commented those who pursue vexatious and abusive applications against others noting that such proceedings include those that attempt to re-litigate and collaterally attack matters already decided by the Court. This decision was upheld on appeal at 2026 NSCA 20 with costs being awarded against the appellant and her counsel.
- Honeybadger Enterprises Ltd. v. Norman Blue and Innovation Credit Union, 2025 SKKB 123, on appeal to SKCA
The case is about liability when a hacker defrauds a company while posing as a counter-party to a transaction
- Cadieux v. Cadieux, 2025 ONCA 405
The Court upheld a Pierringer Agreement even thought the agreement might cause one defendant to pay more than their share of the damages
- Nova Fish Farms Inc. v. Cold Ocean Salmon Inc, 2025 NLCA 28
A time is of the essence clause cannot be used to refuse to close a transaction despite delay in performance by a purchaser if the clause cannot be tied to a specified deadline for performance
- 1401380 Ontario Limited (Wilderness North Air) v. Hydro Oner Remote Communities Inc., 2025 ONCA 827
Though you cannot contract out of the duty of good faith, you can limit liability for a breach of the duty of good faith so long as the limit does not compromise the duty. Moreover, any limitation of liability provision only applies to a party to the contract and not to a non-party who might have induced the breach.
- Project Freeway Inc. v. ABC Technologies Inc., 2025 ONSC 1048, affirmed 2025 ONCA 855
The Court interpreted an ambiguous term in a share purchase agreement by referring to an earlier non-binding Letter of Intent despite the share purchase agreement containing an entire agreement clause. The Court concluded that the text of the Letter of Intent is objective evidence of the parties intentions.
- Lundin Mining Corp v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39
For public issuers, the Court discusses what is a material change and when it must be disclosed.
- Telus Communications Inc. v. Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2025 SCC 15
This is a decision on statutory interpretation, the Court concluding that dynamic interpretation of statutes is part of the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the Court stating at paragraph 35: “Properly understood, there is no contradiction between the principles that the interpretive exercise is grounded in the intent of the enacting legislature and that statutes can be applied to circumstances that were not contemplated by the legislature.”
- Toronto Star Newspapers Limited v. OpenAI Inc., 2025 ONSC 6217
Canadian media outlets challenged OpenAI’s use their copyrighted content to train its GPT models. OpenAI argued that the model was not actually trained in Canada and therefore the action should be dismissed. Though only at a preliminary stage, the Court disagreed noting that the scraping of the material was in Canada.
- Cheng v. Glencore plc, 2025 YKCA 8
A case about corporate mobility. The Court concluded that the oppression remedy in the territory’s Business Corporations Act does not apply to a corporation that had transferred out of the jurisdiction even if the oppression relates to pre-discontinuance conduct. Though liabilities are preserved, the jurisdiction of the original domicile is not.
- Ocean Pacific Hotels Ltd. v. Lee, 2025 BCCA 57
The Court considered whether an action based on pre-contract statements and misrepresentations falls within contract or tort. The Court concluded tort stating “…the duty of honest performance in contract does not extend to dishonesty that was intended to influence the other party to enter into the contract. If it were not so, the organizing principle of good faith established in Bhasin would expand remedies for breach of contract exponentially. It would permit claims for breach of the duty of honest performance to be brought whenever a contracting party alleged that the other party made false or misleading representations during the course of contract negotiations…[It] would result in an unnecessary and potentially confusing overlap between the remedies in tort and contract.”