Hello fellow supporters of the Urban Re-wilding Movement,

Justice Doi reserved Judgement after the July 2nd, 2025 Hearing in the Ontario Superior Court of Appeal at Brampton, and the question may be asked: What can be inferred legally and practically from the fact that no judgment has been released more than three months after the Ruck v. Mississauga hearing on July 2, 2025 (as of October 15, 2025):

Plausible reasons include the following:

1. The Case Remains Under Reserve (Judgment Pending)

The most direct inference is that the presiding judge has reserved judgment.
Under Rule 52.01 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, the court may reserve its decision after hearing arguments and will later issue written reasons.
There is no fixed statutory deadline in Ontario for the release of a reserved decision, though the Canadian Judicial Council’s guidelines (adopted by Ontario courts) recommend judgments be delivered within six months of the hearing.

2. Reasons for Delay (Common and Acceptable)

A delay of 3+ months is not unusual, especially where: The matter involves complex issues such as Administrative Law, Charter arguments, and evidence of mala fides (as in Ruck v. Mississauga).

The judge may be preparing a comprehensive written decision addressing multiple grounds for judicial review or statutory interpretation.

The case may have been taken under advisement pending related rulings or further internal review.

The decision may be undergoing review by the Regional Senior Judge or peers before release, particularly in cases with Public Law or Charter implications.

3. Practical Legal Implications

The status quo remains in effect until judgment is released—meaning no enforcement of the challenged municipal actions should occur unless the court expressly lifted any stay or interim restraint.

4. Inferences About the Nature of the Judgment

While speculative, in procedural practice:

A longer delay can suggest that the judge is writing a substantive, reasoned decision, rather than a brief endorsement or summary dismissal (as was the case in the first Hearing and Judgement rendered by Justice LeMay).

It may also suggest internal review or drafting of an order with broader implications, such as findings on the limits of municipal discretion, procedural fairness, or Charter compliance.

Summary

As of October 15, 2025, the absence of judgment following the July 2, 2025 hearing in Ruck v. Mississauga indicates that the case remains under reserve, with the judge likely preparing a detailed written decision. No procedural default or abandonment is implied, and the Court retains active seisin of the matter until its ruling is formally issued.