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

• 2025-08-12 Butt et al. v. The Estate of Robert John Kelly et al., 2025 ONSC 4646 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Wills exception to solicitor-client privilege — Testamentary documents — Undue influence — Lack of capacity — Solicitor-client privilege — Whether solicitor-client records of deceased’s lawyer should be disclosed to ascertain testator’s true intentions — Wills exception extended to solicitor’s records relevant to testator’s capacity and susceptibility to undue influence — Geffen v. Goodman Estate applied — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 75.06
  Evidence — Solicitor-client privilege — Wills exception — Relevance of solicitor’s records to testamentary capacity and undue influence — Whether solicitor’s records provide insight into testator’s intentions and financial planning — Solicitor-client privilege outweighed by integrity of testamentary process — Geffen v. Goodman Estate, 1991 CanLII 69 (SCC) — Waters v. Henry, 2023 ONSC 4465
  Civil procedure — Non-party discovery — Examination of solicitor — Leave to examine non-party lawyer regarding legal services provided to deceased — Relevance of solicitor’s testimony to testamentary capacity and undue influence — Court discretion under Rules of Civil Procedure to permit non-party examination — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 31.10(1)
• 2025-08-12 Rout v. Firm Capital Mortgage, 2025 ONSC 4657 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Mortgages — Additional interest charges — First mortgagee sought to charge mortgagor three months' additional interest under section 17 of the Mortgages Act — Property sold consensually rather than under power of sale — Whether section 17 permits such charges in these circumstances — Section 17 of the Mortgages Act does not allow additional interest charges in this context
  Sale — Mortgages — Consensual sale of property — First mortgagee issued notice of sale but property sold consensually by the parties — Whether additional interest charge constitutes a penalty under section 8 of the Interest Act — Section 8 prohibits penalties in the form of additional interest charges
  Statutory interpretation — Mortgages Act and Interest Act — Interaction between section 17 of the Mortgages Act and section 8 of the Interest Act — Whether additional interest charge is permissible under the statutory framework — Section 8 of the Interest Act prohibits penalties, overriding section 17 of the Mortgages Act
  Civil procedure — Costs — Partial and substantial indemnity costs — Applicants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis prior to their offer to settle and on a substantial indemnity basis after the offer — Whether costs awarded were reasonable given the conduct of the parties and the timing of the offer — Costs awarded in part on a partial indemnity basis and in part on a substantial indemnity basis under Rule 49.10(1)
• 2025-08-12 Abdullah v. Mursal, 2025 ONSC 4647 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Insurance — Automobile insurance — Settlement authority — Defence lawyer appointed by insurer — Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1) — Did the defence lawyer have authority to settle the Abdullah action on behalf of the insured? — Insurer's right to settle claims under s. 3.3.1 of the Ontario Automobile Policy — Insured's obligation not to interfere in settlement negotiations
  Professional responsibility — Authority of defence counsel — Scope of authority — Settlement within policy limits — Was the settlement of the Abdullah action within the scope of the defence lawyer's authority? — Defence lawyer's role under Ontario Automobile Policy — Insurer's liability limit and insured's personal exposure
  Civil procedure — Consent judgment — Setting aside consent judgment — Prejudice to parties — Should the consent judgment be set aside under Rule 37.14 or Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? — Test for setting aside consent judgments — Interests of justice — Prejudice to co-defendants and plaintiffs
• 2025-08-12 De Almeida v. Peric, 2025 ONSC 4677 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Administrative dismissal — Motion to set aside — Registrar's dismissal for delay — Plaintiff's motion to reinstate action dismissed — Whether the plaintiff met the legal test under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Reid factors applied — Discretionary decision to set aside dismissal — Plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory explanation for delay or demonstrate intention to prosecute — Significant prejudice to defendants due to delay — Rules of Civil Procedure, RRO 1990, Reg 194, Rule 37.14
  Civil procedure — Litigation delay — Plaintiff's obligation to advance action — Prolonged periods of inactivity — Plaintiff failed to explain delays caused by changes in counsel, personal circumstances, and pandemic-related issues — No evidence of defendants contributing to delay — Consequences of delay rest with initiating party — Case law emphasizing party-prosecution system — Reid v. Town of Bracebridge and Tatham, 2025 ONSC 2535; Barbiero v. Pollack, 2024 ONCA 904
  Evidence — Prejudice — Loss of key witnesses — Passing of material witness and defendant during litigation delay — Defendants unable to mount full and fair defence — Plaintiff failed to rebut prejudice — Evidence of prejudice from delay sufficient to deny motion — Presumption of prejudice from prolonged litigation — Fazal v. ABC Corporation, 2022 ONSC 4358 — Prejudice rendered fair trial impossible
  Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs awarded to defendants — Defendants successful in opposing motion to set aside dismissal — Costs fixed at $11,098.74, including HST and disbursements — Costs reasonable and proportionate to issues on motion — Plaintiff did not challenge costs claimed — Costs payable within 30 days
• 2025-08-11 R. v. Hambleton, 2025 ONSC 4626 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Judicial conduct — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Trial judge intervened during cross-examination of the accused, asking approximately 70 questions and aligning with the Crown’s case — Did the trial judge’s conduct undermine the fairness of the trial? — Governing principles from R. v. Walton and R. v. Brouillard applied — New trial ordered due to the appearance of judicial bias
  Evidence — Judicial questioning — Trial fairness — Trial judge’s questioning of the accused during cross-examination created an impression of disbelief in the accused’s testimony — Did the trial judge’s questioning exceed the permissible scope of judicial intervention? — Governing principles from R. v. Valley and R. v. Murray applied — Judicial restraint required to maintain fairness
  Professional responsibility — Role of the trial judge — Neutrality and restraint — Trial judge assumed the role of counsel for the Crown by questioning the accused on credibility and plausibility of evidence — Did the trial judge’s conduct breach the duty to remain neutral? — Principles from R. v. Brouillard applied — New trial ordered to preserve the appearance of fairness

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-08-13 Ilic v. Canadore College, 2025 ONSC 4611 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Academic decisions — Procedural fairness — Applicant challenged the College's decision to refuse completion of a Respiratory Therapy Program — Did the College act unreasonably or breach procedural fairness in making the decision? — Standard of review of reasonableness applied — Deference to academic decisions of public colleges unless manifest unfairness or unreasonableness is demonstrated
  Health — Education — Academic programs — Clinical placements — Applicant failed to meet clinical competencies in neonatal and pediatric rotations — Did the College fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the applicant's disabilities under its policies and the Human Rights Code? — College's decision upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Internal academic appeals — Applicant alleged unfairness in the College's refusal to accept an appeal of the decision to withdraw him from the program — Did the College breach procedural fairness by failing to accept the applicant's appeal? — College's enforcement of appeal deadlines upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Civil procedure — Judicial review — Delay — Extension of time — Applicant filed for judicial review seven months after the decision, beyond the statutory 30-day period — Should the court extend the time for judicial review? — Court declined to address the issue as the application was dismissed on the merits
• 2025-08-11 Gashaw v. Riddell, 2025 ONSC 4614 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Appellant sought partial indemnity costs for appeal — Respondent argued costs should be reduced or denied due to partial success and simplicity of issues — Whether Appellant entitled to costs and in what amount — Successful party entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances exist — Rule 57.01 factors applied — Costs of $5,764.38 awarded to Appellant
  Civil procedure — Costs — Impecuniosity — Respondent argued financial circumstances should preclude costs award — Respondent provided limited evidence of financial situation, including receipt of Ontario Works — Whether impecuniosity should affect costs award — Court must balance financial hardship with objectives of cost awards, including indemnification and deterrence — Insufficient evidence of impecuniosity provided — Costs awarded despite Respondent’s financial circumstances
  Civil procedure — Costs — Motion before Deputy Judge — Appellant sought costs for motion to set aside noting in default — Deputy Judge dismissed motion, later overturned on appeal — Whether costs for motion should be awarded — Motion considered an indulgence — Costs for motion denied as it should have been granted without costs
• 2025-08-08 Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2025 ONSC 4460 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Mootness — Reconsideration decision eliminated sanctions but left findings of misconduct intact — Amendments to the Education Act removed the Board's jurisdiction over conduct complaints — Does the reconsideration decision or legislative amendments render the application moot? — Judicial review not moot where findings of misconduct have ongoing practical effects on applicant's rights
  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 2(b) — Freedom of expression — Applicant alleged that the Board's decision infringed her Charter rights under s. 2(b) — Whether the Board's decision improperly limited the applicant's freedom of expression — Charter values must be balanced with statutory objectives — Standard of review is reasonableness
  Evidence — Procedural fairness — Investigation report — Board failed to provide the applicant and trustees with the investigator's report, relying instead on a PowerPoint summary — Whether the failure to disclose the report breached procedural fairness — Legitimate expectation that the report would be disclosed — Procedural fairness breached where exculpatory information may have been withheld
  Rights and freedoms — Reasonableness of decision — Trustee Code of Conduct — Board found applicant breached confidentiality and other provisions of the Code — Investigator unable to conclude that confidential information was disclosed — Whether the Board's decision was reasonable in light of the evidence — Decision quashed for lack of factual basis and procedural fairness
• 2025-08-08 Welkoff v. Ontario (Health Professions Appeal Review Board), 2025 ONSC 4515 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Applicant sought judicial review of HPARB's decision upholding ICRC's acceptance of a remedial agreement — Was the HPARB's decision unreasonable or procedurally unfair? — Presumptive standard of review for administrative decisions is reasonableness — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 applied
  Professional responsibility — Adequacy of investigation — ICRC investigation into physician's conduct — Applicant alleged investigation was inadequate due to lack of interviews and omission of key complaints — Did the HPARB err in finding the ICRC's investigation adequate? — Adequate investigation need not be exhaustive — Torgerson v. Ontario (HPARB), 2021 ONSC 7416 applied
  Professional responsibility — Procedural fairness — Allegations of procedural unfairness in HPARB and ICRC processes — Applicant alleged lack of transparency, omission of evidence, and failure to interview — Was the HPARB's decision procedurally fair? — Procedural fairness determined by circumstances and Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 factors
  Health — Remedial agreements — Physician's conduct — ICRC accepted remedial agreement requiring self-study and report on risk factors, personality disorders, and discharge planning — Applicant argued remedial agreement was unreasonable and lacked transparency — Was the HPARB's decision to uphold the remedial agreement reasonable? — Remedial agreements must balance public interest and transparency — Protecting Patients Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 11 considered
• 2025-08-01 Grewal v. Dynamic Functional Solutions Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 4391 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Collateral attack — Applicant/appellant initiated second LAT application and subsequent court proceedings after final LAT decision in 2023 — Whether proceedings constitute an abuse of process under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 2.1 invoked to dismiss frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Proceedings dismissed as an abuse of process
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction of administrative tribunals — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — LAT dismissed second application for lack of jurisdiction to award general damages or declaratory relief — Whether LAT has statutory authority to grant remedies sought by applicant/appellant — LAT's jurisdiction limited to statutory accident benefits under the Insurance Act and related regulations
  Torts — Tort claims in statutory accident benefits context — Applicant/appellant alleged tortious conduct by non-insurer parties, including health professionals and service providers, in relation to SABS claims — Whether tort claims can be pursued through LAT or Divisional Court — LAT lacks jurisdiction to address tort claims or award damages against non-insurer parties
  Civil procedure — Collateral attack — Finality of administrative decisions — Applicant/appellant's second LAT application and subsequent court proceedings challenged final LAT decision from 2023 — Whether second application constitutes an impermissible collateral attack — Court held that proceedings indirectly challenged final LAT decision and were dismissed
  Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Remedies under SABS — Applicant/appellant sought damages and declaratory relief unrelated to SABS — LAT's remedial powers limited to statutory remedies under the Insurance Act, including special awards for insurer misconduct — LAT dismissed application for lack of jurisdiction