Fraudulent Conveyance, Void As Against Creditors

In a significant and disappointing turn of events, the remaining sexual assault charges against former megachurch pastor Bruxy Cavey have been withdrawn in a Hamilton courtroom.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 14, 2026.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has left open the possibility that pharmaceutical manufacturers may owe a duty of care to develop safer alternatives to their existing products, even when those products are properly approved and labeled. This decision in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. I.F. contrasts sharply with a recent California Supreme Court ruling that rejected such a "duty to innovate," potentially setting Canada on a divergent path in product liability law.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clarified the legal test for spoliation, establishing a four-part framework that litigants must understand when preserving evidence. This doctrine, rooted in ancient Roman law, creates a mandatory presumption against parties who intentionally destroy or suppress relevant evidence, with courts now empowered to impose severe but proportionate remedies based on the magnitude of the misconduct.

In Cycle Toronto v Ontario (Attorney General), 2026 ONCA 582, the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned a lower court ruling preventing the government of Ontario from ripping out 19 kilometers of protected bike lines along three major Toronto roadways. The decision underlines the limited role of the courts in reviewing policy-based government decisions.

A five-year-old firmware defect in Coldcard hardware wallets has enabled attackers to systematically drain an estimated $116 million in Bitcoin from over 5,200 victims since July 2026. This unprecedented exploit raises critical questions about manufacturer liability and creates two distinct legal pathways for recovery: blockchain tracing against the perpetrators and potential litigation against Canadian manufacturer Coinkite for product defects that undermined the fundamental security promise of devices mar

Class actions can be a way to hold large companies to account when their products fall short of quality standards or pose risks to consumers. Class actions can also be a route to recovery if a manufacturer fails...

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued several significant rulings during the week of May 25, 2026, addressing critical issues spanning professional regulation, defamation law, negligence liability, and commercial disputes. These decisions clarify important legal principles regarding costs awards against regulatory bodies, anti-SLAPP motion analysis, occupiers' duties to warn of hidden dangers, and enforcement of settlement agreements in various contexts.

On July 7, 2026, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed a motion[1] to certify a national class proceeding alleging the defendants engaged in unlawful price-fixing conspiracy to fix or manipulate the prices...

Ontario's Rules of Civil Procedure now include strict amendments requiring lawyers and expert witnesses to certify the authenticity of every citation and authority used in court materials. These new anti-hallucination provisions impose significant penalties for presenting AI-generated fabricated authorities, fundamentally shifting accountability for artificial intelligence use in litigation.