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

• 2025-07-24 River City Christian Reformed Church v. Singh et al., 2025 ONSC 4237 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Security for costs — Rule 56.01(1)(d) — Plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, alleged insufficient assets to pay costs — Defendants sought security for costs of $957,965.81 — Should the Plaintiff be required to post security for costs? — Rule 56.01(1)(d) allows discretion based on factors including impecuniosity and merits of the claim — Motion dismissed as Plaintiff demonstrated impecuniosity and claims were not plainly devoid of merit
  Evidence — Financial disclosure — Impecuniosity — Plaintiff resisted security for costs motion by asserting financial hardship — Did the Plaintiff provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity? — Plaintiff submitted T3010 Registered Charities Information Returns and evidence of declining donations — Full and frank disclosure of financial circumstances required — Court found disclosure sufficient to establish impecuniosity
  Professional responsibility — Solicitor-client relationship — Allegations of conflict of interest — Plaintiff alleged Defendant law firm acted for multiple parties in transaction without advising Plaintiff to seek independent legal advice — Did the Plaintiff’s claims against the law firm have merit? — Court found evidence of potential solicitor-client relationship and conflict of interest — Claims not plainly devoid of merit
• 2025-07-23 Vellenga v. Boersma et al., 2025 ONSC 4340 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Winding up — Liquidation — Shareholder disputes — Distribution of net proceeds — Constructive trust — Misappropriation of corporate funds — Allocation of sale proceeds from Boundary Lake Property — Whether defendants' claims as creditors should take priority over shareholders — Ontario Business Corporations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B.16, ss. 207, 217 — Court's jurisdiction to determine claims and distribute proceeds.
  Civil procedure — Liquidation orders — Leave to bring claims — Whether defendants required leave to file cross-motion under Liquidation Order — Interpretation of sub-paragraphs 3(h) and 3(j) of Liquidation Order — Court held leave not required as accounting issues were deferred to final distribution motion — Ontario Business Corporations Act, s. 217(1).
  Evidence — Res judicata — Issue estoppel — Claims for reimbursement of expenses — Whether claims for shareholder loans and other expenses were previously adjudicated — Trial judge's rejection of shareholder loan claims upheld by Court of Appeal — Abuse of process to relitigate issues already decided — Danyluk v. Ainsworth Technologies Inc., 2001 SCC 44.
  Statutory interpretation — Limitations Act, 2002 — Statute-barred claims — Two-year limitation period — Fifteen-year ultimate limitation period — Whether defendants' claims for reimbursement of expenses were time-barred — Court held claims related to Boundary Lake Property not statute-barred but other claims outside limitation periods dismissed — Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, ss. 4, 5, 15.
  Obligations — Reimbursement of expenses — Property taxes — Imputed costs — Claims for property taxes allowed with supporting evidence — Claims for imputed costs, road construction, and logging expenses dismissed due to lack of evidence and res judicata — Court awarded $26,854.67 for property taxes — Burden of proof on claimants to establish valid expenses.
  Property — Accounting — Misappropriation of funds — Allegations of improper retention of corporate assets by both parties — Court declined to order accounting due to insufficient evidence and statute-barred claims — Claims unrelated to Boundary Lake Property distribution dismissed.
• 2025-07-23 Harris v. Melo, 2025 ONSC 4152 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Partition and sale — Ownership disputes — Applicant and Respondent held undivided 50% interests in a property — Applicant sought partition and sale — Respondent opposed, claiming Applicant held her interest in trust for him — Should an order for partition and sale be granted? — Joint tenants have a prima facie right to force a sale under the Partition Act unless acting maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressively
  Civil procedure — Evidence — Admissibility of affidavits — Respondent relied on affidavits of two individuals who failed to attend cross-examination — Should the affidavits be admitted? — Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits striking affidavits where cross-examination is not possible
  Property — Limitation periods — Real Property Limitations Act — Respondent claimed Applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him — Applicant argued the claim was statute-barred — Is the trust claim statute-barred? — Section 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act applies a ten-year limitation period, subject to discoverability
  Estates and trusts — Resulting trust — Constructive trust — Respondent claimed Applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him — Applicant made no financial contribution to the property purchase — Does the Applicant hold her interest in trust for the Respondent? — Presumption of resulting trust arises when one party contributes to the purchase price without taking title, rebuttable by evidence of intent to gift
• 2025-07-22 R v. Giammichele, 2025 ONSC 1090 (CanLII)
  Key Words:
• 2025-07-22 Nieuwenhuis v. FRP Inc., 2025 ONSC 4275 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Conditions precedent — Approval Condition and Lease Condition — Whether failure to fulfill or waive conditions rendered the agreement null and void — Neither party tendered on the closing date — Parties failed to reinstate time of the essence — Agreement deemed abandoned — Governing principles from King v. Urban & Country Transport Ltd. and Malka v. Racz applied
  Lease — Residential lease condition — Agreement of Purchase and Sale conditional on execution of a lease agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act — Lease never prepared or executed — Whether failure to fulfill lease condition rendered the agreement null and void — Lease Condition deemed unfulfilled, contributing to abandonment of the agreement
  Property — Deposit — Return of deposit — Agreement of Purchase and Sale deemed abandoned — Defendant sought return of deposit after failure to close — Neither party reinstated time of the essence — Deposit of $175,000 plus interest ordered to be returned to the defendant
  Sale — Damages — Failed real estate transaction — Plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Market value of property at time of breach not established — Plaintiffs’ damages limited to $700,000 based on proposed Second Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Principles from 100 Main Street Ltd. v. W.B. Sullivan Construction Ltd. and Bang v. Sebastion considered
  Obligations — Time of the essence — Reinstatement of time of the essence — Neither party ready, willing, or able to close on the scheduled date — No notice served to reinstate time of the essence — Agreement treated as abandoned — Plaintiffs’ failure to reinstate time of the essence precluded entitlement to damages

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-07-24 EQB v. JOUNG, 2025 ONSC 4343 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Administrative fines — Bad faith termination — Landlord issued notice of termination under s. 49(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 for a building with more than three units — Board found bad faith and imposed $10,000 fine — Was the administrative fine valid under s. 57(3)? — Fine upheld as a deterrent for public protection — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 49(1), 57(1)(b), 57(3)
  Lease — Notice of termination — Validity — Landlord used Form N9 instead of Form N11 and misled tenants about a purchaser — Board found notice invalid and issued in bad faith — Did the Board err in law in finding the notice invalid? — Board’s findings upheld as consistent with s. 202 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006
  Administrative law — Tribunal participation in appeals — Landlord and tenants settled dispute, but Board sought to participate in appeal to defend administrative fine — Does the Board have the right to participate in such appeals? — Court held Board could make submissions limited to public interest and administrative fines — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210(3)
  Administrative law — Role of administrative tribunals — Public interest — Board’s participation in appeal limited to submissions on administrative fines and public interest — Tribunal impartiality balanced against need for fully informed adjudication — Principles from Ontario (Energy Board) v. Ontario Power Generation Inc. applied
• 2025-07-24 Park v. Geico, 2025 ONSC 4282 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Natural justice — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Appellant alleged denial of procedural fairness due to interpreter quality and reconsideration by the same adjudicator — Whether LAT adhered to principles of natural justice — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness — Tribunal's internal reconsideration mechanism upheld as procedurally fair — Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29; Warren v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2022 ONSC 3741 applied
  Insurance — Income replacement benefits — Denial of benefits — Appellant sought judicial review of LAT decision denying income replacement benefits — Whether procedural fairness was breached in the denial process — Tribunal found to have addressed interpreter concerns adequately and provided procedural fairness — Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, c. 12, Sched. G, s. 11(3)
  Evidence — Factual findings — Reasonableness — Appellant challenged LAT's findings on income, ability to work, and medical evidence — Tribunal acknowledged minor error in income calculation but deemed it immaterial — Findings on appellant's ability to work and medical evidence upheld as reasonable — Standard of review for factual findings is reasonableness — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 applied
  Civil procedure — Admission of new evidence — Reconsideration process — Appellant sought to introduce new evidence during LAT reconsideration — Tribunal refused to admit evidence available at the original hearing — Whether refusal to admit new evidence was procedurally fair — Tribunal's decision upheld as consistent with procedural rules and fairness principles
• 2025-07-23 Tran v. Brickman, 2025 ONSC 4341 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Torts — Negligent misrepresentation — Real estate transactions — Appellant, an experienced real estate agent, misrepresented the existence of registered offers during a property sale — Did the Trial Judge err in finding that the appellant made negligent misrepresentations? — Misrepresentation requires proof of false statements inducing reliance and resulting damages — Statutory and common law requirements for registered offers under Real Estate Business Brokers Act, 2002 and Statute of Frauds
  Torts — Damages — Loss of chance doctrine — Trial Judge awarded $28,600 in damages based on the midpoint between the parties’ bid and ask — Did the Trial Judge err in applying the loss of chance doctrine? — Damages must be based on a principled assessment of the likely outcome absent misrepresentation — Courts of Justice Act, s. 25
  Torts — Findings of fact — Motivation to sell — Trial Judge found appellant was motivated to sell below her stated minimum price — Did the Trial Judge make a palpable and overriding error in this finding? — Palpable and overriding error requires a finding made on no evidence or ignoring obvious evidence of overriding importance
  Civil procedure — Costs — Self-represented litigants — Respondents sought costs for time spent and disbursements for a professionally prepared factum — Are self-represented litigants entitled to costs for their time? — Self-represented litigants may recover disbursements but not time spent unless they forgo remunerative work — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131; Rule 57.01
• 2025-07-17 Maguire v. Canada et al., 2025 ONSC 4232 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Rule 2.1 — Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious claims — Motion judge dismissed claims against most defendants but allowed claims against Bayer and Johnson defendants to proceed — Whether Rule 2.1 permits partial dismissal of claims against some defendants — Court held that Rule 2.1 allows dismissal against individual defendants if claims are frivolous or vexatious — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 2.1
  Statutory interpretation — Rule 2.1 — Interpretation of “a proceeding” under Rule 2.1 — Appellants argued that the rule does not allow partial dismissal of claims — Court held that Rule 2.1 permits dismissal of claims against individual defendants while allowing others to proceed — Interpretation consistent with purpose of Rule 2.1 to protect court resources and parties from vexatious litigation
  Torts — Negligence — Vexatious litigation — Claims against Bayer defendants for harm caused by herbicides and against Johnson defendants for harm caused by acetaminophen — Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief, including funding for research — Court found claims to be vexatious and lacking in standing — Hallmarks of vexatious litigation identified, including prolix pleadings and unreasonable relief sought
  Child protection — Standing — Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of her children without seeking leave to act as litigation guardian — Claims against Johnson defendants for harm caused by acetaminophen ingestion — Court held that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of her children — Claims dismissed for lack of standing
• 2025-07-16 Ontario Association of Chicken Processors v. Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chicken Commission, 2025 ONSC 4174 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Tribunal decision quashed for failing to provide adequate reasons for its findings on expert evidence — Did the Tribunal fail to meet the standard of reasonableness by not analyzing competing expert evidence? — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 — Tribunal decision set aside and remitted for a fresh hearing
  Evidence — Expert evidence — Competing expert reports — Tribunal’s preference for certain expert evidence over others — Tribunal failed to provide sufficient analysis or explanation for its findings — Did the Tribunal err in its handling of expert evidence by failing to justify its conclusions? — Requirement for reasoned explanation in assessing expert evidence
  Civil procedure — Remedies — Judicial review — Tribunal decision quashed and remitted for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal — Inadequate reasons provided by the Tribunal rendered the decision unreasonable — Was the Tribunal’s failure to provide adequate reasons sufficient to justify setting aside its decision? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. J.1