A collection of judgments of the Superior Court of Justice, primarily released after October 1, 2002, is posted on CanLII. The CanLII website is not an exhaustive source of judgments of the Superior 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 Superior Court of Justice can be obtained by contacting the respective court administrative 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® Quicklaw^TM and WestlawNext® Canada.

Subscribe to the RSS Feeds for Superior Court of Justice Judgments

• Superior Court of Justice Recent Decisions
• Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

Superior Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-10 Furtado v. DeSousa, 2026 ONSC 3356 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil liability — Damages — Double recovery — Whether settlement monies under a Pierringer agreement must be deducted from the jury award against a non‑settling defendant — Ratych v. Bloomer applied, Lauden v. Roberts followed, Terpstra Farms endorsed — Negligence Act context, several liability preserved — Prevention of overcompensation emphasized — Settlement proceeds to be credited against damages — Deduction ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Pierringer agreements — Is the plaintiff entitled to deduct reasonable solicitor and client costs incurred in pursuing the settling defendant before set‑off — Bedard v. Martyn and Canadian Natural Resources v. Wood Group Mustang followed — Net settlement approach adopted, no surplus until full indemnity for costs — Full indemnity basis specified — Deduction to account for full indemnity costs approved
  Procedure — Costs — Court’s discretion — Does the court have discretion to fix an appropriate costs component where the all‑inclusive settlement has no express allocation — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131(1) confers broad discretion, Rule 57 framework referenced — Parties invited to agree, failing which court will fix — Experienced counsel expected to confer — Court to fix costs if no agreement
  Procedure — Interest — Prejudgment interest — Should prejudgment interest be calculated before or after deduction of net settlement proceeds — Issue identified following jury verdict and settlement disclosure — Counsel directed to include argument if unresolved — Timing of interest calculation outstanding pending submissions — Issue reserved for submissions
• 2026-06-10 Cash Store Financial Services Inc. (Re), 2026 ONSC 3421 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Bankruptcy and insolvency — CCAA plan interpretation — Security for costs — Whether funds released from security for costs are “Subsequent Cash on Hand” — New funding agreement replaces Litigation Funding and Indemnity Reserve — Para. 3.4 directs payment to Cash Store for stakeholders — Plain and ordinary meaning applied — Funds released from Canaccord security treated as Subsequent Cash on Hand — Distribution to Secured Noteholders confirmed
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Priorities — Post-filing claims — Do post-filing claims for costs have priority over payments required by the Plan — No basis to grant enhanced priority to post-filing claims generally — s. 7.5 preserves rights but not priority over express Plan terms — Pike v. Bel-Tronics Co. considered — Priority claim to costs rejected
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Officers of the court — Monitor — Whether the Monitor’s fees and disbursements should be approved — Detailed invoices reviewed — Costs come from recovery otherwise payable to Secured Noteholders — Secured Noteholders consent to costs claimed — Costs found reasonable and approved — Monitor fees and disbursements approved
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Court supervision — Monitor — Should the Court approve the Monitor’s historical activities and grant discharge and releases — No beneficial purpose to approving activities after plan approval and end of litigation — Limitation periods expired — Order signed except paragraph regarding approval of activities — Approval of activities refused, discharge and releases granted
• 2026-06-10 Irps-bleeker v. Groenberg Farms Inc., 2026 ONSC 3425 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Formation and validity — Real estate transactions — Was the Agreement of Purchase and Sale void because the counteroffer expired before acceptance? — Irrevocability date changed to May 31 and initialled by the seller — Counteroffer accepted within the irrevocability period — Evidence of seller’s shifting account rejected — Binding and enforceable APS confirmed — Action dismissed
  Contracts — Consent and duress — Real estate transactions — Did the plaintiff execute the APS under duress rendering it voidable? — Economic pressure from court order and threatened motion assessed — Pressure not illegitimate and free will not overborne — Stott v. Merit Investment Corp. applied with recent authorities — Duress not established — Action dismissed
• 2026-06-09 R v. Bhullar, 2026 ONSC 3119 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Fresh evidence on appeal — Ineffective assistance claim — Criminal Code, s. 683(1)(d) — Palmer test modified for miscarriage of justice allegations — Whether to admit trial counsel’s statement and complainant’s police statement — Admitted for the limited purpose of evaluating ineffective assistance, per Dansereau and Archer — Fresh evidence admitted
  Procedure — Ineffective assistance of counsel — Miscarriage of justice — Test from Zheng, Archer, G.D.B. — Whether failure to cross‑examine on alleged inconsistencies undermined trial fairness or verdict reliability — Materiality of inconsistencies assessed against W.D. analysis — Reasonable probability of different result not established — No miscarriage of justice — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Errors of law and misapprehension — Grounds available under s. 686(1)(a) Criminal Code — Whether the trial judge erred in law or misapprehended the evidence — No submissions advanced and no basis shown — Grounds not made out — Appeal dismissed
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fitness of sentence — Whether sentence demonstrably unfit or unreasonable — Deference to trial judge per Lacasse and Shropshire — Range for taxi or uber driver breach of trust cases identified at 6 to 18 months — Sentence of custody and probation upheld as proportionate — Sentence appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-08 Versteegh v. Kerr, 2026 ONSC 3357 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Family Law Rules — Timing of costs determination — Does Rule 24(1) require prompt costs decision after a step? — Deferral requested pending disclosure considered under Rule 1(8) — Judge who completed the step best placed to assess costs, Laidman v. Pasalic — Determination now avoids later confusion and controversy — Costs determined now
  Procedure — Costs entitlement — Presumption and exceptions — Successful party presumptively entitled under Rule 24(3) — Do exceptions in Rule 24(4), 24(5), 24(6), 24(7) or 24(10) apply? — None apply on these facts — Respondent’s unreasonable conduct considered under Rule 24(14)(a)(i) — Entitlement to Applicant’s costs confirmed — Costs awarded
  Procedure — Offers to settle — Rule 24(12) consequences — Was the order as good as or better than the Applicant’s severable offer? — Overall, first component less generous to Respondent than the order, Jackson v. Mayerle, Thompson v. Drummond — Enhanced costs under Rule 24(12) not triggered — Offer nevertheless relevant under Rule 24(14)(a)(iii) — Enhanced costs refused
  Procedure — Fixing costs — Proportionality and reasonableness — Application of Rule 24(14) factors to an important but average complexity motion — Hours claimed partially excessive — Financial circumstances and child care obligations weighed, F.K. v. A.K. — Reasonable expectations considered, Davies v. Clarington, Scipione v. Del Sordo — Fair and proportional amount fixed — Costs fixed at $10,000

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-10 Bodnarchuk v. Iona Investments, 2026 CanLII 55997 (ON SCDC)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Dismissal — Should the appeal be dismissed where the appellant does not oppose? — No materials filed, instructions to discontinue, notice of intention to act in person — Stay of eviction lifted at case conference, brief attendances only — Appellant consented to dismissal — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Scale — Are substantial indemnity costs warranted or should costs be partial indemnity under r. 57.01? — Factors in r. 57.01 applied with reasonableness and proportionality — Limited steps taken, counsel required to review file and act promptly — Substantial indemnity declined — Costs on partial indemnity awarded
  Procedure — Abuse of process — Costs — Did the appellant’s conduct amount to abuse of process justifying substantial indemnity? — Allegation of appeal to delay eviction and payment of arrears — Six broad grounds of appeal advanced increasing complexity — Court declines to find conduct warranting substantial indemnity — Substantial indemnity refused
• 2026-06-08 Donna Pelrine, by her Estate Trustee James Pelrine et al. v. Chung et al., 2026 ONSC 3373 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Wills and estates — Trusts — Leave to deliver — Costs
• 2026-06-05 Zolnai v. Zolnai, 2026 ONSC 2808 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Support — Enforcement — Motion to change support while in arrears — Whether Respondent may proceed despite non‑compliance with consent order — Court emphasises that orders must be obeyed — Arrears as of March 1, 2020 to be paid as condition of participation — Costs fixed by agreement — Appeal granted — Conditional participation ordered
  Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Did the motion judge reverse the onus under the r. 1(8) test? — Correct test from Pye v. Pye applied — Onus on non‑complying party per Teixeira — Error of law identified — Decision set aside — Appeal granted
  Procedure — Sanctions — Discretion — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Were there exceptional circumstances to refrain from sanctioning non‑compliance? — No exceptional circumstances found on record — Non‑compliance with consent order established — Sanction generally required absent exceptional circumstances — Sanction ordered
  Procedure — Remedies — Striking or staying — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Appropriate remedy where significant arrears persist — Objective is to induce compliance, not eliminate adversary, per Purcaru and Rayes — Striking pleadings reserved for exceptional cases — Conditional order requiring payment of arrears as of March 1, 2020 — Conditional participation ordered
  Procedure — Appellate powers — Disposition — Courts of Justice Act, s. 134(1) — Should the appellate court decide the motion or remit? — Primary objective under FLR r. 2(3) considered — Fairness, time and resources favoured deciding on record — Rehearing would cause undue delay — Matter decided by appellate court — Appeal granted
• 2026-06-05 Deokaran v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3216 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Tribunal procedure — Appeal Division jurisdiction — Whether the Appeal Division could dismiss an unperfected appeal for delay without a Rule 17.4(1) motion — Proceeding management conference endorsements setting deadlines — Rules of Practice and Procedure applied in accordance with their purposes — Procedural decision, not a merits-based decision — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Case management — Whether a motion under Rule 17.4(1) was required — Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 permitting action on the Tribunal’s own initiative — Rule 17.4(1) characterised as a permissive rule — Timelines to perfect the appeal ordered and missed — Dismissal for failing to perfect upheld — Appeal cannot succeed
  Administrative law — Composition of panel — Whether dismissal for delay required a five-person panel under Ontario Regulation 167/07, s. 5 — Dismissal not arising from the “hearing of an appeal” — Serra v. Serra and AMT Finance Inc. v. LaFountaine distinguished — No comparable rule to Rule 61.16(2.2) applicable — Single adjudicator’s procedural dismissal valid — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-05 Menghesha v. Gebremariam, 2026 ONSC 3265 (CanLII)
  Key Words: van — writing — motion — amended — leave