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

• 2025-09-22 Guttin. v. Creber et al., 2025 ONSC 5008 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Oppression remedy — Consolidation of applications — Minority shareholder rights — Allegations of financial impropriety, unauthorized dividends, and concealment of financial position — Should the court consolidate two applications or hear them together? — Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Applications to be heard together to avoid inconsistent rulings and preserve limitation period defences
  Civil procedure — Consolidation — Timetable for proceedings — Judicial efficiency — Multiplicity of proceedings — Should the court consolidate two applications or set a timetable for hearing them together? — Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Applications to be heard together with a peremptory hearing date
  Business associations — Audited financial statements — Compliance with court orders — Oppression remedy — Should respondents be compelled to comply with court orders for audited financial statements? — Directors’ obligations under the Ontario Business Corporations Act — Welch LLP ordered to complete audits within specified timelines
  Access to information — Former director’s rights — Oppression remedy — Financial anomalies in draft audited statements — Does a former director have the right to demand answers from auditors regarding anomalies in financial statements? — Directors’ duties under s. 134 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act — Broader disclosure permitted in oppression remedy litigation
• 2025-09-22 Hudson v. Drain, 2025 ONSC 5396 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Torts — Occupiers' Liability Act — Common law negligence — Plaintiff injured after falling from a deer blind on rural property — Whether the OLA applies exclusively to determine liability for occupiers, displacing common law negligence claims — Statutory framework of the OLA, ss. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 — OLA intended as an exhaustive scheme for occupiers' liability — Plaintiff's withdrawal of "occupier" allegation precluded reliance on common law negligence for nonfeasance
  Torts — Duty of care — Misfeasance — Allegation that defendant removed green carpet from deer blind, creating a hazard — Whether defendant owed a duty of care to future users of the deer blind despite not being an occupier under the OLA — Positive acts creating hazards as a basis for common law negligence — Standard of care and causation issues submitted to jury
  Torts — Contributory negligence — Plaintiff's conduct — Whether plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk of injury by climbing into the deer blind — Jury tasked with determining if plaintiff's own negligence contributed to his injuries — Apportionment of liability based on contributory negligence principles
  Statutory interpretation — Occupiers' Liability Act — Exclusivity of statutory scheme — Whether the OLA displaces common law negligence claims for occupiers — Interpretation of s. 2 of the OLA as replacing common law rules for occupiers' liability — Legislative intent to harmonize and limit liability for occupiers
• 2025-09-22 R v. Seevaratnam, 2025 ONSC 5377 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Charter breaches — Informational component of s. 10(b) — Appellant alleged police failed to provide adequate information about legal aid and toll-free duty counsel number at roadside — Did the trial judge err in finding no breach of s. 10(b)? — Obligation to convey information enabling informed choice, not verbatim recitation — R. v. Brydges, R. v. Bartle applied — No error in trial judge’s reasoning
  Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Right to counsel — Police questioning after invocation of s. 10(b) rights — Appellant alleged police questioning breached s. 10(b) — Did the trial judge err in finding no breach? — Police responses found rhetorical, not intended to elicit evidence — Distinction from R. v. Beals — No breach found
  Rights and freedoms — Right to counsel — Second call to counsel — Appellant denied second call to sister or other counsel after first call proved unhelpful — Did the trial judge err in finding no further s. 10(b) breach? — Police not required to facilitate further calls where no reasonable basis to infer utility — R. v. Badgerow distinguished — No breach found
  Evidence — Exclusion of breathalyzer evidence — Remedy for s. 10(b) breach — Trial judge found breach in failure to contact named counsel but admitted breathalyzer evidence — Did the trial judge err in declining exclusion? — Grant test applied — Breach serious but mitigated; public interest favoured inclusion — No error in analysis
  Evidence — Charter remedies — Failure to preserve interview room audio recording — s. 7 breach found but stay of proceedings denied — Did the trial judge err in declining stay? — Adverse inference applied to officer’s evidence — No irreparable harm to trial fairness or justice system integrity — Stay as remedy of last resort — R. v. Bero applied
  Criminal infractions — Impaired operation of a motor vehicle — Sufficiency of evidence — Appellant convicted of impaired operation and “over 80” — Was the conviction supported by the evidence? — Totality of evidence, including physical observations, behaviour, and breathalyzer results, supported finding of impairment beyond a reasonable doubt — R. v. Stellato applied
• 2025-09-22 Xiao v. He, 2025 ONSC 5402 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Mareva injunction — Substantial indemnity vs. partial indemnity — Plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs due to alleged fraud by the defendant — Defendant argued costs should be awarded in the cause — Should costs for the motion be awarded on a substantial indemnity or partial indemnity basis? — Costs fixed on a partial indemnity basis as no finding of fraud was made — Governing principles for awarding costs in interlocutory injunctions
  Civil procedure — Costs — Timing of cost determination — Interlocutory injunctions — Defendant argued costs should be reserved to the trial judge — Should costs for the motion be fixed at this stage or reserved to the trial judge? — Costs fixed at this stage to avoid re-litigation of the issue at trial — Costs awarded to the successful party in the cause
  Civil procedure — Costs — Payment from trust funds — Mareva injunction — Plaintiffs requested costs be paid from funds held in trust under the Mareva injunction — Should the costs awarded be payable from the funds held in trust? — No specific ruling on payment from trust funds — Costs fixed on a partial indemnity basis and awarded in the cause
• 2025-09-19 Pierce v. Oswald, 2025 ONSC 5344 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Will interpretation — Residue clause — Per stirpes distribution — Testator's intention — Interpretation of Clause 3(d) of the will — Whether the residue of the estate should be distributed equally among the siblings and their descendants or solely to the surviving sibling — Governing principles of will interpretation — Armchair rule — Anti-lapse provision under Succession Law Reform Act, s. 31 — Court held that the residue should be distributed per stirpes among siblings and their descendants
  Civil procedure — Service of application — Proper service on beneficiaries residing outside Ontario — Application for interpretation of will — Service effected under Rule 17.02(c)(ii) and Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents — Whether service requirements were met — Court held that service was properly effected on all interested parties
  Estates and trusts — Costs — Estate trustee's costs — Application for will interpretation — Whether estate trustee's costs should be paid from the estate — Costs fixed at $32,878.87, including legal fees, disbursements, and taxes — Court held that costs were reasonable and payable from the estate

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-09-23 Malek v Galam, 2025 ONSC 5418 (CanLII)
  Key Words: costs — motion — leave — thirty — inclusive
• 2025-09-23 Desloges Law Group Professional Corporation v Anqi, 2025 ONSC 5419 (CanLII)
  Key Words: unreported — thirty — inclusive — writing — payable
• 2025-09-22 Stewart v. Emerald Limited Partnership, 2025 ONSC 5369 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Eviction — Noise complaints — Tenant appealed eviction order and review order from the Landlord and Tenant Board — Did the Board err in determining that the noise issue was resolved on March 2, 2022? — Board found that the Landlord acted reasonably and promptly in addressing the noise issue — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, ss. 20, 82, 83
  Lease — Landlord's obligations — Maintenance and repair — Tenant alleged Landlord breached section 20 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 by failing to address noise complaints in a timely manner — Did the Board err in ruling that the Landlord acted reasonably? — Board applied the test from Onyskiw v. CJM Property Management Ltd., 2016 ONCA 477 — Reasonableness of Landlord's response upheld
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Admission of new evidence — Tenant sought to admit new evidence during review hearing — Review Member refused to admit evidence not presented at the original hearing — Did the Review Member err in refusing to admit new evidence? — Board entitled to control its own process — Refusal to admit evidence upheld
• 2025-09-22 Kim v. McIntosh, 2025 ONSC 5373 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious motions — Abuse of process — Motion to set aside a prior decision under Rule 2.1.02 — Whether the motion was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Application of Rule 2.1.02 to dismiss meritless motions — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 2.1.01, 2.1.02
  Civil procedure — Setting aside orders — Fraud or new facts — Motion to set aside a prior order under Rule 59.06(2)(a) — Whether new facts or fraud justified setting aside the April 2022 decision — Requirements under Rule 59.06(2)(a) — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 59.06(2)(a)
  Professional responsibility — Judicial recusal — Request for recusal of Registrar and six judges — Allegations of discrimination and lack of jurisdiction — Whether the request for recusal was properly before the court — Repeated requests for recusal as part of a litigant’s pattern of behaviour
• 2025-09-22 Fiset v. 1789331 Ontario Limited, 2025 ONSC 5386 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Rent increase — Service of notice — Residential tenancy — Landlord served tenant with N1 Notice of Rent Increase — Tenant disputed proper service of notice — Does the issue of proper service constitute a question of mixed fact and law, precluding appellate review? — Court held that questions of mixed fact and law are not subject to appellate review under the Divisional Court’s jurisdiction
  Lease — Voidable eviction order — Payment of rent — Tenant paid rent for months following issuance of voidable eviction order — Does payment of rent affect the validity of the eviction order? — Court held that payment of rent does not invalidate the eviction order but prevents further enforcement if conditions are met
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction of Landlord and Tenant Board — Superior Court action — Tenant argued that a pending Superior Court action deprived the Landlord and Tenant Board of jurisdiction to address a rent increase — Does the existence of a separate Superior Court action affect the Board’s jurisdiction? — Court held that the Board retained jurisdiction to address the rent increase
  Evidence — Fresh evidence on appeal — Tenant sought to introduce materials not presented before the Landlord and Tenant Board — No motion to admit fresh evidence was brought — Should the materials be admitted as fresh evidence? — Court applied the Palmer test and held that the materials did not meet the criteria for fresh evidence
  Civil procedure — Costs — Appeal dismissed — Respondent sought costs of the appeal — What is the appropriate amount of costs to be awarded? — Court awarded $4,000 in costs to the respondent as fair and reasonable