ONCA Notice of Appeal Template

Last Updated: May 8, 2026
Data Source: 5,034 Ontario Court of Appeal decisions (2020-2026)

Quick Facts

⚖️ When to Use: After leave to appeal has been granted OR when appealing as of right
📊 Appeal Success Rate: 13.2% (156 allowed of 1,179 classified appeals)
⏱️ Timeline: Must file within 30 days of leave being granted (or order being appealed)
💰 Filing Fee: Check ONCA website (typically $500-$750)
💼 Legal Representation: MANDATORY for most cases - ONCA is a professional appellate court

When to Use This Template

Use this Notice of Appeal ONLY if:

✅ Your motion for leave to appeal was granted by ONCA
✅ You are appealing a final order from Divisional Court
✅ You are appealing a Superior Court decision where appeal is available as of right

❌ DO NOT FILE THIS if:

  • You have not yet applied for (or received) leave to appeal
  • Your leave motion was refused (appeal cannot proceed)
  • You are still within tribunal or Divisional Court deadlines (go there first)

Key Requirements

What You Must Specify in Notice of Appeal:

  1. Precise relief sought - What you want ONCA to order
  2. Grounds of appeal - Legal errors you allege (be specific, not general)
  3. Material facts - Key facts supporting your grounds (briefly)
  4. Legal basis - Statutes/cases supporting your position
  5. Order under appeal - Exact order you’re challenging

⚠️ CRITICAL: Grounds stated in Notice of Appeal limit what you can argue. You cannot argue grounds not in your Notice without leave to amend.

Fill-in-the-Blank Notice of Appeal

COURT FILE NO.: C-[NUMBER ASSIGNED BY COURT]
DATE: [TODAY'S DATE]

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

[YOUR NAME]
Appellant

- and -

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND INSURANCE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
[or other tribunal/party name]

Respondent

NOTICE OF APPEAL

THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Court of Appeal from the order/decision of [DIVISIONAL COURT / SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE], dated [DECISION DATE], [JUDGE'S NAME(S)].

THE APPELLANT ASKS that the order be set aside and that this Court:

1. [PRIMARY RELIEF SOUGHT - e.g., "Allow the appeal and set aside the Divisional Court's order dismissing the appellant's appeal from WSIAT"];

2. [ALTERNATIVE RELIEF - e.g., "In the alternative, remit the matter to WSIAT for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal test"];

3. [COSTS - e.g., "Award costs of this appeal and the proceedings below to the appellant"];

4. [OTHER RELIEF - e.g., "Grant such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just"].

THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are:

GROUND 1: THE DIVISIONAL COURT ERRED IN LAW BY APPLYING THE WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW

1. The Divisional Court erred by reviewing the Tribunal's interpretation of [SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION] on a standard of correctness, when the presumption of reasonableness review applies to questions of law within a tribunal's home statute pursuant to *Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov*, 2019 SCC 65.

2. Material facts relevant to this ground:
   - The Divisional Court stated at paragraph [X] that it would review the interpretation "on a correctness standard"
   - The question concerned interpretation of [STATUTORY PROVISION], which falls within WSIAT's specialized expertise
   - The Court failed to identify any applicable exception to the presumption of reasonableness

3. Legal basis for this ground:
   - *Vavilov*, supra, at paras. 23-33 (presumption of reasonableness for administrative decision-makers)
   - *Workplace Safety and Insurance Act*, 1997, S.O. 1997, c. 16, Sch. A, s. 126(1) (WSIAT's exclusive jurisdiction)
   - *WSIAT v. Smith* (fictional cite - use real case), 2023 ONCA 456, at para. 28 (standard of review for WSIAT statutory interpretation)

GROUND 2: THE TRIBUNAL UNREASONABLY INTERPRETED [STATUTORY PROVISION]

4. The Tribunal's interpretation of [SPECIFIC STATUTORY PROVISION] to mean [TRIBUNAL'S INTERPRETATION] is unreasonable because it:
   
   a) Contradicts the plain wording of the statute, which states [QUOTE STATUTE];
   
   b) Produces absurd results, namely [SPECIFIC ABSURD OUTCOME];
   
   c) Is inconsistent with the statutory purpose of [PURPOSE]; and
   
   d) Conflicts with binding precedent in [CASE NAME].

5. Material facts relevant to this ground:
   - The Tribunal decision states at page [X]: "[QUOTE TRIBUNAL'S REASONING]"
   - The appellant's [EVIDENCE TYPE] established that [KEY FACT]
   - The Tribunal failed to consider [EVIDENCE/FACTOR] that contradicts its interpretation

6. Legal basis for this ground:
   - *[Relevant statute name]*, section [X]
   - *Vavilov*, supra, at paras. 122-124 (unreasonable decisions include unjustifiable outcomes)
   - *[Relevant ONCA case]*, [year] ONCA [number], at para. [X] (interpretation of same provision)

GROUND 3: THE TRIBUNAL BREACHED PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS / NATURAL JUSTICE

7. The Tribunal denied the appellant procedural fairness by:
   
   a) [SPECIFIC UNFAIRNESS - e.g., "Relying on medical opinion of Dr. X without disclosing this opinion to the appellant or providing opportunity to respond"];
   
   b) [SPECIFIC UNFAIRNESS - e.g., "Demonstrating a reasonable apprehension of bias by making predetermined findings before hearing evidence"];
   
   c) [SPECIFIC UNFAIRNESS - e.g., "Failing to provide intelligible reasons addressing the appellant's key arguments"].

8. Material facts relevant to this ground:
   - [SPECIFIC FACT showing procedural unfairness]
   - [SPECIFIC FACT showing prejudice to appellant]
   - The Tribunal's reasons, at page [X], fail to mention [KEY ARGUMENT]

9. Legal basis for this ground:
   - *Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)*, [1999] 2 SCR 817 (duty of fairness)
   - *Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union v. Newfoundland and Labrador (Treasury Board)*, 2011 SCC 62, at para. 16 (adequacy of reasons)
   - *Committee for Justice and Liberty v. National Energy Board*, [1978] 1 SCR 369 (reasonable apprehension of bias test)

[ADD ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AS NECESSARY - USE SAME FORMAT]

THE BASIS OF THE APPELLATE COURT'S JURISDICTION IS:

[ ] Section 19(1)(b) of the *Courts of Justice Act*, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 - Appeal lies to the Court of Appeal from an order of the Divisional Court, with leave of the Court of Appeal

[✓] Leave to appeal granted by order of the Court of Appeal dated [DATE OF LEAVE ORDER]

[ ] Other: [SPECIFY - e.g., "Appeal as of right under section ___"]

[DATE]

_________________________________
[YOUR NAME OR LAWYER NAME]
[ADDRESS]
[PHONE]
[EMAIL]
[LAW SOCIETY NUMBER if lawyer]

TO: [RESPONDENT'S NAME]
    [RESPONDENT'S ADDRESS]
    
    [TRIBUNAL'S NAME - if a party]
    [TRIBUNAL'S ADDRESS]

Critical Deadlines After Filing

⏰ STRICT TIMELINES - MISS THEM AT YOUR PERIL:

Deadline Action Required
Within 30 days of leave order File Notice of Appeal + pay filing fee
Within 60 days of filing Notice Serve and file Appellant’s Appeal Book and Factum
30 days after receiving Appellant’s materials Respondent files materials
10 days after receiving Respondent’s materials Appellant may file Reply Factum (optional)
Variable Court schedules hearing (typically 6-12 months after materials complete)

⚠️ Extensions: ONCA rarely grants extensions without exceptional circumstances. File on time or risk dismissal for delay.

Common Grounds of Appeal

✅ Strong Grounds (More likely to succeed):

  1. Standard of review error - Court below applied wrong standard (correctness instead of reasonableness, or vice versa)
  2. Misapplication of legal test - Court/tribunal applied wrong legal framework (e.g., wrong test for causation)
  3. Procedural fairness breach - Denial of natural justice, bias, or failure to provide fair hearing
  4. Jurisdictional error - Tribunal exceeded its statutory authority
  5. Failure to consider binding precedent - Court/tribunal ignored applicable case law

❌ Weak Grounds (Rarely succeed):

  1. “The decision was wrong” - Not a legal error; must show how the legal reasoning was flawed
  2. Factual disagreements - ONCA defers to trial judges/tribunals on facts and credibility
  3. Weight of evidence - Court below entitled to prefer one expert over another
  4. Inadequacy of reasons - Unless reasons are unintelligible, ONCA defers
  5. Sympathy appeals - “I really need this outcome” is not a ground of appeal

What Happens After Filing

1. Perfecting the Appeal (Preparing materials)

You must prepare:

  • Appellant’s Appeal Book - Contains all key documents from below (tribunal/court decisions, key evidence, orders)
  • Exhibit Book - Important documents referenced in your factum
  • Appellant’s Factum - Your legal argument (max 40 pages) - Use our template
  • Book of Authorities - All cases you cite, organized by tab
  • Compendium - Key excerpts from your materials for judges’ quick reference

2. Respondent’s Materials

Respondent files:

  • Respondent’s Factum - Their counter-arguments
  • Respondent’s Book of Authorities - Cases they rely on

3. Oral Hearing

  • Typically 1-2 hours total (split between parties)
  • 3-judge panel (occasionally 5 judges for important cases)
  • Judges interrupt frequently - be prepared to answer questions, not just read your script
  • Focus on strongest 1-2 arguments - no time to cover everything

4. Decision

  • Rendered months after hearing (typically 3-6 months, sometimes longer)
  • Published on CanLII (public decision)
  • Options: Appeal allowed, appeal dismissed, remitted to lower tribunal/court

Sample Ground of Appeal (Well-Drafted)

GROUND 2: THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW BY MISAPPLYING THE “ARISING OUT OF” TEST

  1. The Tribunal erred by requiring the appellant to prove that workplace duties were the sole cause of the back injury, when section 13(1) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act requires only that the injury “arise out of” employment.

  2. Material facts: The Tribunal found at paragraph 12 that the appellant had “pre-existing degenerative disc disease” and concluded this “broke the chain of causation.” The Tribunal’s decision does not cite Athey v. Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458, which holds that pre-existing conditions do not negate causation if the workplace materially contributed to the injury.

  3. Legal basis: The “arising out of” test requires only material contribution, not sole causation (WSIAT v. Jones (fictional), 2021 ONCA 234, at para. 45). The Tribunal’s “sole cause” approach contradicts 30 years of ONCA jurisprudence.

GROUND 2: THE DECISION WAS WRONG AND UNFAIR

  1. The Tribunal made the wrong decision. I clearly was injured at work and deserve benefits.

  2. The doctor said I had a back injury. WSIB should have accepted this.

  3. It is unfair that I don’t get benefits when I can’t work.

⚠️ Problem: No legal error identified. Just disagreement with outcome. ONCA cannot help.

Cost Risks

Scenario Typical Costs Award
Appeal allowed Partial costs to appellant ($10,000-$20,000)
Appeal dismissed Substantial costs to respondent ($15,000-$30,000)
Appeal abandoned Significant costs to respondent ($10,000-$25,000)
Mixed success No costs or reduced costs

💡 TIP: If your case weakens during the appeal, consider abandoning early to minimize costs exposure. Costs increase substantially once materials are filed and hearing is booked.

Important Disclaimers

⚠️ HIRE A LAWYER: ONCA is a professional appellate court. Self-represented litigants face significant disadvantages. This template provides structure but cannot replace legal advice on your specific case.

⚠️ SUCCESS RATE: Only 13.2% of appeals succeed at ONCA. Assess your case realistically before proceeding.

⚠️ COST RISK: Unsuccessful appeals result in costs awards ($15,000-$30,000 typical). Ensure you can afford this risk before filing.

⚠️ DEADLINES ARE STRICT: ONCA will dismiss for delay. File on time or seek extension immediately.

Last Updated: May 8, 2026
Data Source: 5,034 ONCA decisions scraped from CanLII (2020-2026)
Maintained by: 3mpwr App