Decisions

A collection of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice, primarily released after April 1, 2004, is posted on CanLII. The CanLII website is not an exhaustive source of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice. The official version of the reasons for judgment is the signed original or handwritten endorsement in the court file. In the event that there is a question about the content of a judgment, the original in the court file takes precedence.

Judgments are available in the language provided.

Copies of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice can be obtained by contacting the respective court office where the matter was heard. A photocopy charge is payable. Judgments are also available on a number of subscription based services such as LexisNexis® QuicklawTM and WestlawNext® Canada.

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

  • 2025-06-18 D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 335 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Family — Parenting issues — Decision-making responsibility — Parenting time — Success on parenting issues divided between the parties — Assessment of dominant issues and divided success — Framework for determining success in family law cases — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs entitlement for successful party — Subrule 24(4) allowing apportionment of costs for divided success — Governing principles from Lazare v. Heitner, 2018 ONSC 4861, and Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556<br />Family — Child support — Retroactive support — Imputed income — Section 7 expenses — Success on child support issues divided — Mother slightly more successful — Imputation of income to father for 2024 and 2025 — Retroactive support ordered starting October 1, 2021 — Shared parenting arrangement affecting support obligations — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs entitlement rebutted by unreasonable conduct<br />Civil procedure — Costs in family law — Principles of reasonableness and proportionality — Offers to settle — Subrule 24(12) costs consequences for failure to accept offers — Neither party's offer met the threshold for costs consequences — Governing principles from Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, and Wilson v. Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163<br />Civil procedure — Unreasonable conduct — Impact on costs — Mother's unreasonable conduct rebutting presumption of costs entitlement — Unilateral decisions, abusive communications, and non-compliance with court orders — Conduct unduly lengthening trial and increasing costs — Governing principles from Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 6855, and Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556<br />Civil procedure — Costs determination — Discretionary nature of costs awards — Factors under subrule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules — Reasonableness of legal fees, offers to settle, and party behaviour — No costs awarded to either party due to divided success and unreasonable conduct
  • 2025-06-16 R. v. Mohammed, 2025 ONCJ 331 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Accessory after the fact — Manslaughter — Sentencing — Offender pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter — What is the appropriate sentence considering the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint? — Sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Statutory interpretation — Sentencing principles — Conditional sentences — Application of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code — Does the offender meet the statutory prerequisites for a conditional sentence? — Offence not excluded from conditional sentencing — Sentence less than two years imposed — Conditional sentence consistent with sentencing principles — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 742.1<br />Criminal procedure — Conditional sentences — Community safety — Offender’s low risk of reoffending — Whether a conditional sentence endangers community safety — Offender’s compliance with strict bail conditions and rehabilitative efforts considered — Conditional sentence deemed appropriate — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 742.1<br />Evidence — Mitigating and aggravating factors — Sentencing — Offender’s cooperation, remorse, and prior conduct — Offender’s guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with authorities considered mitigating — Aggravating factors include the offender’s assistance to the principal offender and the impact on the victim’s family — Sentencing principles balanced to reflect these factors — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Credit for time served — Bail conditions — Offender spent nine days in custody and 22 months under strict bail conditions — Credit applied to reduce the notional sentence — Calculation of net sentence based on pre-sentence custody and bail conditions — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 719; R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26
  • 2025-06-16 R. v. Foran, 2025 ONCJ 332 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal procedure — Approved Screening Device (ASD) tests — Lawfulness of second ASD test — Accused stopped after exiting liquor store — First ASD test resulted in "Fail" — Second ASD test conducted without new demand — Was the second ASD test lawful under the Criminal Code? — Police actions justified to ensure accuracy of initial test results — Criminal Code, s. 320.14(1)(b)<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Unlawful search and seizure — Second ASD test conducted without a new demand — Defence argued second test was unlawful — Was the second ASD test a violation of section 8 of the Charter? — No breach found as second test conducted for accused’s benefit to ensure accuracy<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Second ASD test conducted after right to counsel advice but before access to counsel — Defence argued breach of section 10(b) — Did the second ASD test violate the accused’s right to counsel? — No breach found as police were not eliciting incriminating evidence<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Counsel of choice — Accused alleged police "steered" him to duty counsel — Defence argued breach of section 10(b) right to counsel of choice — Was the accused’s right to counsel of choice violated? — Evidence insufficient to prove breach — Police fulfilled implementation duty based on accused’s statements<br />Evidence — Breath tests — Approved instrument tests — Accused’s blood alcohol concentration measured at 247mgs and 232mgs — Defence challenged lawfulness of arrest and tests — Were the arrest and evidentiary breath tests conducted lawfully? — Arrest and tests found lawful — Reasonable suspicion and grounds for arrest established
  • 2025-06-16 Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development) v. New Leaf, 2025 ONCJ 333 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Workplace health and safety — Sentencing — Corporate liability — Non-profit organization — Worker fatality — Corporation found guilty of failing to take reasonable precautions under OHSA — Aggravating factors include worker death and foreseeable risks — Mitigating factors include financial constraints and service impact — Appropriate fine determined based on proportionality and deterrence — OHSA, s. 25(2)(h), s. 25(1)(a)<br />Workplace health and safety — Sentencing — Individual supervisor liability — Worker fatality — Supervisor found guilty of failing to take reasonable precautions under OHSA — Aggravating factors include moral blameworthiness and worker death — Mitigating factors include exemplary antecedents, remorse, and mental health impact — Fine imposed instead of incarceration — OHSA, s. 27(2)(c)<br />Workplace health and safety — Sentencing principles — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Worker fatality — Balancing deterrence, proportionality, and financial impact on service delivery — Non-profit organization facing financial constraints — No reduction in fines for post-offence compliance — OHSA sentencing framework<br />Statutory interpretation — Restitution — OHSA — Whether restitution or fines can be directed to the family of a deceased worker — Court lacks jurisdiction to order restitution or direct fines to the family under OHSA provisions in effect at the time — Suggestion for legislative amendment — OHSA, s. 66
  • 2025-06-16 R. v. Robitaille, 2025 ONCJ 336 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault causing bodily harm — Intentional or reckless application of force — Accused kicked a volleyball, striking the complainant in the face and causing injuries — Whether the accused’s actions were deliberate or reckless, or merely accidental — Mens rea for assault causing bodily harm includes recklessness — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 265(1)<br />Evidence — Intent and recklessness — Accused kicked a volleyball with significant force toward a group of people, striking the complainant — Witnesses testified to the force of the kick and proximity of the group — Whether circumstantial evidence supports intent or recklessness — Mens rea requires that the risk of bodily harm was either intended or objectively foreseeable<br />Evidence — Foreseeability of harm — Accused kicked a volleyball toward a group of seated individuals, causing significant injury to the complainant — Whether the risk of bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable consequence of the accused’s conduct — Test for foreseeability of harm in assault causing bodily harm<br />Criminal procedure — Intoxication — General intent offences — Accused appeared intoxicated at the time of the incident — Whether intoxication provides a defence to the general intent offence of assault causing bodily harm — Intoxication not a defence for general intent offences — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 265(1)
Ontario Court of Justice