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

• 2025-10-10 Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources Ltd., 2025 ONSC 5752 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Securities — Class actions — Settlement approval — Financial misrepresentations — Class action certified under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 — Proposed settlement agreement reached with mediator’s assistance — Defendant to pay $6,800,000 without admitting liability — Should the court approve the settlement agreement? — Settlement approval requires compliance with statutory requirements and fairness to class members
  Civil procedure — Class actions — Notice distribution plan — Class Proceedings Act, 1992 — Proposed notice plan includes direct notice, bilingual press release, and online posting — Should the court approve the notice and distribution plan? — Notice plan must ensure substantial awareness among class members and comply with statutory requirements
  Securities — Class actions — Settlement administration — Appointment of administrator — Epiq Global proposed as settlement administrator — Epiq has experience in administering class action settlements — Is Epiq Global an appropriate choice for settlement administration? — Administrator must have adequate staffing, systems, and experience to ensure effective implementation of settlement terms
• 2025-10-10 1000850372 Ontario Inc. v. Core Urban Pipeline LP, 2025 ONSC 5787 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Termination of lease — Relief from forfeiture — Tenant sought relief from forfeiture after being locked out of premises — Alleged breaches included failure to pay rent, operation of unlicensed adult entertainment facility, and security lapses leading to a violent incident — Should the Tenant be granted relief from forfeiture? — Court declined to exercise equitable jurisdiction due to the gravity of breaches — Commercial Tenancies Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.7, s. 20(1)
  Lease — Injunctions — Interim relief — Tenant sought interim injunction to regain possession of premises pending arbitration — Landlord argued arbitrator had jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief — Should the court grant an injunction pending arbitration? — Court declined to grant injunction, holding that arbitration process must be respected — Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 31
  Lease — Termination of lease — Validity of notice — Landlord issued notice of default and terminated lease following alleged breaches — Tenant argued notice was invalid and breaches were unsubstantiated — Is the September 5 Notice terminating the Lease enforceable? — Court declined to rule on enforceability, holding that the issue falls within the arbitrator’s jurisdiction
  Civil procedure — Arbitration agreements — Stay of proceedings — Tenant applied to court for relief despite arbitration clause in lease — Landlord sought stay of proceedings, arguing dispute must be resolved through arbitration — Should the application be stayed and the dispute referred to arbitration? — Court granted stay, holding arbitration clause was broad and mandatory — Arbitration Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 17, s. 7(1)
• 2025-10-09 R. v. Brennan, 2025 ONSC 5748 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Summary dismissal — Threshold for summary dismissal — Application alleging institutional bias based on historical involvement of Jesuits with Indigenous peoples — Whether the application was "manifestly frivolous" — Supreme Court of Canada guidance in R. v. Haevischer — Test for summary dismissal in criminal law — Application dismissed as failing to meet the threshold for institutional bias
  Indigenous peoples — Institutional bias — Allegations of bias based on historical involvement of Jesuits with Indigenous peoples — Accused argued institutional bias crystalized by Crown's cross-examination of Indigenous witness — Whether historical context and questioning created a reasonable apprehension of bias — Application dismissed for lack of evidence of systemic bias
  Constitution — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — Traditional Indigenous circle as a remedy — Accused sought resolution through a traditional Indigenous circle under UNDRIP principles — Whether the proposed remedy aligned with constitutional guarantees of fair trial rights — Application dismissed as inconsistent with trial process
  Evidence — Summary dismissal — Evidence required to meet the threshold for institutional bias — Accused submitted affidavit and historical context to support allegations of bias — Court found no evidence of systemic bias or structural impartiality — Strong presumption of judicial impartiality upheld
• 2025-10-09 Afshari v. Privitera, 2025 ONSC 5758 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Partial summary judgment — Dismissal of counterclaim — Defendant by counterclaim sought summary dismissal of claims against it — Whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial — Whether partial summary judgment was appropriate — Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied — Hryniak v. Mauldin framework for summary judgment motions
  Civil procedure — Striking pleadings — Reasonable cause of action — Counterclaim alleged vicarious liability of brokerage for agent’s private transactions — Whether counterclaim disclosed a reasonable cause of action — Pleadings must contain material facts, not bald allegations — Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Frivolous or vexatious pleadings — Counterclaim alleged liability of brokerage without evidence of involvement in transactions — Whether counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  Civil procedure — Vicarious liability — Brokerage liability for agent’s conduct — Agent acted in personal capacity after cancelling listing agreements — No significant connection between brokerage’s enterprise and alleged wrongdoing — Bazley v. Curry test for vicarious liability applied
• 2025-10-08 1650661 Ontario Inc. v. Emonds, 2025 ONSC 5695 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Pleadings — Amendments — Defendants sought leave to amend pleadings under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendments would resile from prior admissions — Whether the amendments raised a triable issue or were a tactical move to frustrate justice — Rule 26 governs amendments unless inconsistent admissions are involved — Leave to amend granted except for the non est factum defence
  Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Interaction between Rule 26 and Rule 51.05 — Plaintiffs argued that Rule 51.05, governing withdrawal of admissions, superseded Rule 26 — Court held that Rule 51.05 applies only to specific admissions under Rule 51.03 or pleadings — Rule 26 applied to the motion to amend pleadings
  Evidence — Admissions — Defendants allegedly made admissions in affidavits and cross-examinations regarding promissory notes and repayment terms — Plaintiffs argued that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with these admissions — Court found no inconsistency except regarding repayment terms — Antipas test applied only to inconsistent admissions
  Contracts — Defences — Non est factum — Defendants sought to plead non est factum, alleging misunderstanding of the promissory note terms — Court held that prior admissions regarding the note’s terms precluded reliance on non est factum — Defence of non est factum disallowed in amended pleadings

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-10-10 Mondee Inc. v. Voyzant Inc., 2025 ONSC 5708 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — costs — writing — ordered — motion
• 2025-10-10 Ottawa (City) v. 154775 Canada Inc., 2025 ONSC 5709 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — writing — ordered — motion — leave
• 2025-10-10 Ndubuisi v Ndubuisi, 2025 ONSC 5711 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — fixed — writing — payable — motion
• 2025-10-10 Baradaran v. Alborz Roofing Inc., 2025 ONSC 5712 (CanLII)
  Key Words: writing — judicial — motion — determination — leave
• 2025-10-09 Wais v. Coachman Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 5595 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) — Interpretation of "insured person" — Appellant involved in a motor vehicle accident argued he was an "insured person" under the SABS despite no active insurance policy — Tribunal found appellant did not meet the definition of "insured person" under s. 3(1) of the SABS — Did the Tribunal err in law in its interpretation of "insured person"? — Tribunal's interpretation upheld as correct
  Insurance — Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund — Recourse to the Fund — Appellant argued he had recourse to the Fund as a payor of last resort — Tribunal found appellant failed to exhaust recourse against other insurers as required under s. 268(2)1(iv) of the Insurance Act — Was the Tribunal correct in denying recourse to the Fund? — Tribunal's decision upheld
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Tribunal's process — Appellant alleged procedural unfairness due to page limits on submissions, adjudicator expertise, and failure to review its own decision — Tribunal's procedural rulings found to be within its discretion — Did the Tribunal breach procedural fairness? — No breach of procedural fairness found