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

• 2025-10-30 Saad Keval v. Hiep Nguyen, 2025 ONSC 6127 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Ejectment — Ownership rights — Plaintiff listed as sole owner on title — Defendant residing on property without lease or written ownership interest — Plaintiff seeking possession to repair and sell property — Does the Plaintiff have a strong prima facie case for possession under the tort of ejectment? — Strong prima facie case established where Plaintiff is dispossessed of property lawfully owned
  Property — Injunctions — Irreparable harm — Plaintiff unable to carry mortgage costs — Risk of property forfeiture due to illegal marijuana cultivation — Defendant’s bail conditions prohibiting drug paraphernalia — Does the Plaintiff face irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted? — Irreparable harm established where financial burden and legal risks are significant
  Property — Injunctions — Balance of convenience — Plaintiff’s property rights versus Defendant’s potential harm — Defendant given 30 days to vacate property — Proceeds of sale to be paid into court — Does the balance of convenience favour granting the injunction? — Balance of convenience favours Plaintiff where harm to Defendant is mitigated by court orders
  Civil procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Test for granting injunctions — RJR MacDonald test applied — Serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience considered — Should an interlocutory injunction be granted to provide Plaintiff with possession of property? — Injunction granted where Plaintiff meets all three branches of the test
• 2025-10-30 Sabarros v. Morell, 2025 ONSC 6122 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Dependant’s relief — Succession Law Reform Act (SLRA) — Plaintiff sought support from her late father’s estate under section 58 of the SLRA — Whether the plaintiff, as an adult child, met the statutory definition of “dependant” — Moral and equitable considerations under the SLRA — Broad discretion of the court to provide relief to dependants — Remedial nature of the SLRA — Rule 2.1.01 not applicable to dismiss the claim as frivolous
  Civil procedure — Summary dismissal — Rule 2.1.01 — Defendant sought summary dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim for dependant’s relief — Whether the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 reserved for clear cases where abusive nature is apparent on the face of pleadings — Court declined to dismiss the claim, finding it raised issues worthy of consideration
  Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Parallel proceedings — Plaintiff pursued dependant’s relief claim and a separate application challenging the validity of the deceased’s will — Defendant alleged improper overlap and tactical advantage — Court found no abuse of process — Distinct legal issues in each proceeding — No violation of judicial economy, consistency, or integrity of the administration of justice
• 2025-10-29 R. v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 4875 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Fraud over $5,000 — Uttering a forged document — Sentencing — Proportionality — Denunciation — Deterrence — Offenders convicted of fraud and forgery related to mandatory entry-level training for Class A licences — What is the appropriate sentence for the offenders? — Principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence applied under section 718 of the Criminal Code
  Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Concurrent versus consecutive sentences — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Offences arising from the same fraudulent scheme — Should the sentences be served concurrently or consecutively? — Sentences imposed concurrently as offences were part of the same transaction and protected the same legal interests
  Transportation — Forfeiture — Offence-related property — Fraud involving truck driver training — Forfeiture of three trucks used in the commission of fraud — Should a forfeiture order be issued under section 490.1 of the Criminal Code? — Forfeiture order issued as trucks were integral to the fraudulent scheme and proportional to the offence
  Criminal infractions — Conditional sentences — Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Are the conditions for a conditional sentence met? — Conditional sentence imposed with strict house arrest and community service, meeting the requirements of section 742.1 and addressing denunciation and deterrence
• 2025-10-29 Fatima v Tunio, 2025 ONSC 5474 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Decision-making responsibility — Best interests of the child — Sole decision-making responsibility for health and education awarded to the mother — Joint decision-making responsibility for culture and extracurricular activities — High conflict between parents and inability to cooperate — Does the allocation of decision-making responsibility promote the child's stability and well-being? — Framework under the Divorce Act, RSC 1985, c 3 (2nd Supp), ss. 16.1, 16.3
  Family — Parenting time — Shared parenting time — Status quo maintained with six overnights every two weeks for the father — Allegations of manipulation and coaching by the father — Does the current parenting schedule serve the child's best interests? — Parenting time determined under the Divorce Act, s. 16.2, considering stability and meaningful relationships with both parents
  Family — Child support — Imputed income — Retroactive child support — Father's income imputed at full-time minimum wage; mother's income imputed at part-time minimum wage — Offset child support of $113 monthly ordered — Retroactive child support adjusted based on shared parenting time and historical incomes — Federal Child Support Guidelines, ss. 9, 19
  Family — Section 7 expenses — Private school tuition — Private school tuition not deemed a special or extraordinary expense — Expense found unnecessary and beyond the parties' means — Does the tuition meet the criteria under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines? — Analysis of necessity and reasonableness in relation to the child's best interests and family means
  Family — Incidental orders — Travel and communication — Orders for travel consent, emergency decision-making, and communication through a family app — Provisions to minimize conflict and ensure stability for the child — Are incidental orders necessary to implement parenting and support arrangements? — Ancillary orders under the Divorce Act, ss. 16.4, 16.5
• 2025-10-29 R. v. S.M, 2025 ONSC 5887 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Dangerous offender application — Remand for assessment — Crown application under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code — Offender convicted of serious personal injury offences, including sexual assault of biological daughters — Whether the court should grant the Crown’s application for an assessment order — Threshold for granting an assessment order — Section 752.1 of the Criminal Code mandates assessment if reasonable grounds exist — Application granted
  Statutory interpretation — Dangerous offender provisions — Amendments to section 752.1 of the Criminal Code — Procedural nature of amendments — Retrospective application of amended provisions — Whether the Crown met the statutory requirements for an assessment order — Court applied current provisions of section 752.1 — R. v. Vanderwal, 2010 ONSC 265 discussed — Application granted
  Evidence — Admissibility of reports — Predicate offences — Reports prepared for convictions overturned on appeal — Whether such reports can be admitted at the threshold stage of a dangerous offender application — Court admitted reports as relevant to determining whether an assessment should be ordered — Offender retains right to challenge evidence at the dangerous offender hearing — Application granted
  Evidence — Threshold for assessment order — Low threshold for granting an assessment order under section 752.1 of the Criminal Code — Court acts as gatekeeper to ensure reasonable prospect of success for dangerous offender designation — Persistent pattern of behaviour and substantial risk of reoffending demonstrated — Application granted

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-10-31 Davids v. Wiggins, 2025 ONSC 5889 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — released — writing — motion — leave
• 2025-10-31 Zatowkaniuk v. Brevity Mortgage Services Inc., 2025 ONSC 5890 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — writing — motion — leave — pay
• 2025-10-29 The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs v. Minister of Public Affairs and Business Delivery and Procurement, 2025 ONSC 5477 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Director’s decision under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Whether the Director’s interpretation of the Act was reasonable in concluding that the University of Windsor was not engaging in business — Framework for assessing reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
  Rights and freedoms — Discrimination — Academic boycotts — University agreements with student groups — Provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities — Whether the agreements violated the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Purpose of the Act to prevent discrimination in business relationships — Interpretation of “engaging in business” under the Act
  Statutory interpretation — Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Section 4(1)3(ii) — Whether the provision in the agreements constituted a discriminatory business practice — Interpretation of “refuse or fail to employ or promote” under the Act — Whether the provision impacted employment or promotion of Israeli academics or University faculty — Contextual and purposive approach to statutory interpretation
  Statutory interpretation — Public academic institutions — Whether the University of Windsor’s actions fell within the scope of “engaging in business” under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Application of Beauchamp v. North Central Predators AAA Hockey Assn., 2005 — Preponderant purpose test for determining business activity
• 2025-10-28 Taylor v. Freeman, 2025 ONSC 3760 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Mareva injunction — Legal test — Appellants appealed an order requiring $4,000,000 from property sale proceeds to be paid into court — Did the motion judge err in applying the general test for interlocutory injunctions instead of the stricter Mareva injunction test? — Test for Mareva injunction includes strong prima facie case, risk of asset dissipation, and undertaking as to damages — Motion judge’s failure to apply correct test rendered the order invalid
  Lease — Commercial lease — Joint venture — Dispute over characterization of agreement between property owners and business operators — Respondents claimed joint venture agreement; appellants argued simple lease — Did the respondents establish a strong prima facie case for their claim? — Lack of documentary evidence undermined respondents’ claim of financial contributions and joint venture agreement
  Property — Rule 45.02 — Specific fund — Respondents sought payment into court under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Did the motion judge err in granting relief under Rule 45.02? — Rule 45.02 applies only to claims involving a specific fund or constructive trust — Respondents’ claim for damages did not meet this requirement
  Civil procedure — Delay — Interlocutory injunction — Obligation to advance proceedings — Respondents failed to advance their case after obtaining a Mareva injunction — Should the motion judge have addressed the delay in proceedings? — Courts emphasize the need for prompt advancement of cases where interlocutory relief is granted
• 2025-10-27 Halkiw v. Lavin, 2025 ONSC 6048 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Termination of tenancy — Good faith — Landlord served N13 Notice to terminate tenancy for conversion to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board found landlord acted in bad faith, motivated by tenant’s prior success in obtaining Residential Tenancies Act protections — Whether landlord’s intent to convert unit was genuine — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(a)
  Lease — Permits for conversion — Landlord sought to terminate tenancy to convert unit to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board required evidence of permits or exemption from permits under section 73(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether Board erred in requiring proof of permits for a commercially zoned unit — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(b)
  Lease — Utilities — Procedural fairness — Landlord claimed unpaid utility charges under tenancy agreement — Landlord and Tenant Board failed to address utility claim in its decision — Whether failure to rule on utilities breached procedural fairness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194, Rule 61.08
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Consistency of tribunal decisions — Landlord argued Landlord and Tenant Board failed to follow findings from prior decision regarding unit’s commercial zoning and live/work use — Whether Board’s decision was inconsistent with prior ruling — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33