Ontario’s appellate bench has three new members with experience spanning commercial disputes, criminal appeals and public law.
On October 1, 2026, Justice Minister Sean Fraser announced the appointments of Justices Frederick L. Myers, David E. Harris and Sandra Nishikawa to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. All three were serving on Ontario’s Superior Court.
For practitioners, their biographies provide useful professional context. Their future judgments will provide the evidence of how they approach appellate questions.
Meet the three appellate appointees
| Judge | Experience highlighted in the announcement |
|---|---|
| Frederick L. Myers | Insolvency and commercial litigation; appointed to the Superior Court in 2014. |
| David E. Harris | Criminal defence and appellate practice; argued more than 150 matters before the Ontario Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada. |
| Sandra Nishikawa | Commercial, administrative, public and human-rights law; previously counsel at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. |
Myers fills a position authorized under Bill C-74 in 2018. Harris replaces Justice Lois Roberts, and Nishikawa replaces Justice Gary Trotter, following their elections to supernumerary status.
Five appointments to the Superior Court
The same announcement named five Superior Court appointees:
| Appointee | Court location |
|---|---|
| Christopher M. Arnone | Thunder Bay |
| Michael S. Dunn | Newmarket |
| Nicolas M. Rouleau | Toronto |
| Shantona Chaudhury | Toronto |
| Bevin E. Shores | St. Catharines |
Rouleau and Chaudhury fill positions vacated by Myers and Nishikawa’s elevations.
Why the appointments deserve practitioners’ attention
Analysis: Judicial appointments are worth following for more than name recognition.
They create an occasion to refresh the firm’s understanding of the court: who now sits on the bench, which published reasons are useful to study and what professional experience appears in official biographies.
That research should remain disciplined. An insolvency background does not establish a preference for creditors. Criminal defence experience does not predict how a judge will resolve a Crown appeal. Public-sector practice does not determine the outcome of a judicial review.
Biographical information helps lawyers ask better research questions. It cannot answer a legal question on its own.
How to turn appointment news into useful legal research
Analysis: Firms can make this update practical without trying to predict judicial leanings.
For appellate teams, a short internal note could link the appointment announcement to selected published decisions from each judge’s Superior Court service. The purpose would be to study reasoning, clarity and treatment of recurring issues.
Research should distinguish a judge’s individual reasons from decisions joined as part of a panel. It should also preserve procedural context: an interlocutory ruling, trial judgment and appellate decision may address different questions.
For junior lawyers, this is a useful exercise in reading judgments beyond the result. Ask what issue the court identified, which facts mattered and how the reasons connected authority to the disposition.
What clients need to know
Analysis: Most clients do not need a detailed judicial biography. They need an accurate explanation of whether an appointment changes anything relevant to their file.
Counsel should avoid promising faster hearings, a particular outcome or a change in doctrine based solely on these announcements. Those propositions require separate evidence.
The immediate professional task is modest but valuable: update research resources, circulate accurate names and locations, and follow the new appellate judges’ published work as it develops.
Primary source: Department of Justice Canada’s Ontario judicial appointments announcement