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

• 2026-03-05 Citti v. Klein, 2026 ONSC 1320 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil liability — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Elements and reliance — Whether deemed admissions and affidavits entitle the plaintiffs to judgment — False project brochures and non‑acquisition of identified properties — Reliance by each plaintiff established for specified investments — Citizens Bank of Canada v. Pastore applied, Samine LLC v. Digital Shovel cited — Default judgment granted for all three investments of the second plaintiff and one investment of the first plaintiff — Default judgment granted in part
  Business associations — Corporations — Directing mind attribution — Whether corporate defendants are liable for misrepresentations of the directing mind — Promotional materials and solicitations issued through corporate vehicles — Admissions that the individual was the directing mind of the corporations — Corporate liability for deceit established coextensively with individual liability — Default judgment against corporate defendants granted
  Civil liability — Damages — Punitive damages — Whether punitive damages may be awarded on a default judgment motion for egregious fraud — Knowingly false statements inducing substantial investments — Retribution, deterrence and denunciation considered — John Howard Society of Peel‑Halton‑Dufferin v. Pennock referenced — Quantum fixed at a proportion of proven losses — Punitive damages awarded
  Procedure — Default judgment — Undefended trial — Whether claims lacking pleaded reliance or evidentiary support should proceed to trial — Deemed admissions under Rules of Civil Procedure rr. 19.02, 19.05 and 19.06 considered — Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin test applied — Portions concerning one defendant and two investments require oral evidence — Undefended trial directed
• 2026-03-05 Weaver v. Robson, 2026 ONSC 1346 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131, and Rule 57.01(1) — Fixing an amount that is fair and reasonable rather than actual costs incurred — Whether partial indemnity costs should be fixed following a successful motion — Defendant wholly successful — Amount fixed inclusive of HST and disbursements — Payment within 30 days — Costs awarded on partial indemnity
  Procedure — Costs — Entitlement and scale — Should the Defendant receive costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale? — Boucher v. Public Accountants Council applied, fair and reasonable amount emphasised — Rule 57.01 factors considered with the result in the proceeding — Motion success determinative — Fixed sum inclusive of HST and disbursements — Costs awarded to the Defendant
  Procedure — Costs — Liability of non-party or third party — Can costs be ordered against the Third Party municipality where no claim was brought and no undertaking proven? — Plaintiff advanced no pleading against municipality — Alleged “undertaking” disputed and not accepted — No basis before the court to order costs against municipality — Costs not ordered against municipality
  Procedure — Costs — Effect of consent and evidentiary record — Does the Third Party’s consent and absence of evidence affect allocation of costs? — Notes record only consent to the motion — No materials filed and no further statements made — Defendant wholly successful and costs remain payable by the Plaintiff — Allocation guided by success and record — Costs payable by the Plaintiff
• 2026-03-05 Anishinabeg et al. v. AGC et al., 2026 ONSC 1139 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Representative proceedings — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 12.08 — Does r. 12.08 apply to a representative action advancing s. 35 Aboriginal title and treaty claims? — Ontario courts consistently apply r. 12.08 in s. 35 matters — Western Canadian Shopping Centres and Hwlitsum cited on representative criteria — Court authorization required to bring the proceeding — Motion granted
  Procedure — Civil practice and procedure — Timing of motions — Must a r. 12.08 motion be brought at the outset or can representation be deferred to trial? — Caetano requires authorization to bring a proceeding — Deferral to trial declined given case complexity and timetable — Parties did not consent to deferral — Representation to be determined pre-trial — Motion granted
  Indigenous peoples — Aboriginal rights and title — Reconciliation and access to justice — Do reconciliation and access to justice permit dispensing with or delaying a r. 12.08 motion? — Métis Nation - Saskatchewan referenced on facilitating Aboriginal claims — Procedural requirements still apply to establish capacity to advance claims — Functional approach applies to substance, not authorization step — Motion granted
• 2026-03-05 Sicotte Guilbault LLP v. Leading Practice SAS, 2026 ONSC 1327 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Counsel of record — Withdrawal — Rule 15 removal — Whether counsel should be removed due to irreparable breakdown — Client’s loss of confidence, disputes over strategy and financing — Contingency agreement not a bar to withdrawal — Trial adjourned, order to take steps issued — Motion to get off the record granted
  Professional responsibility — Fees — Contingency fee agreement — Approval of agreement sought under Solicitor’s Act — Should a 40 percent contingency be approved after lawyer‑initiated termination? — Hourly billing clause triggered only by client termination — Reasonableness of fees for work done in litigation — Approval declined — Accounts referred for assessment
  Statutory interpretation — Solicitor’s Act — Scope — Escrow services — Do fees for escrow agent services fall within the assessment regime? — Escrow retainer distinct from legal services, separate Euro account, no HST — Not treated as a retainer for legal services under the Act — Escrow fees excluded from assessment, recovery left to ordinary action
  Professional responsibility — Trust accounts — Holding funds pending assessment — May the firm retain trust monies while accounts are assessed? — Funds in trust to secure legal fees and disbursements — Risk of enforcing judgment abroad considered — Funds to remain in interest‑bearing trust or be paid into court — Retention of trust funds pending assessment authorised
• 2026-03-05 R. v. Long, 2026 ONSC 1329 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Sentencing process — Motion for Directions — Should the court determine Bundy before sentencing submissions? — Mootness argued under Borowski and judicial economy addressed — Identification of available sentencing range required — Bundy issue not moot and directly affects rights — Arguments on Bundy to precede sentencing — Directions issued to hear Bundy first
  Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code — Mandatory minimums framework — Interpretation of ss. 320.2 and 320.26 — Whether prior s. 253(b) is a first offence for s. 320.14(2) — Reference to R. v. Bundy and asserted legislative gap — Impact on minimum punishment and CSO availability — Bundy issue to be argued prior to sentencing — Hearing ordered
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional Sentence Orders — Whether a CSO is available if s. 320.2(a)(ii) minimum applies — Interaction with s. 742.1(b) where a minimum term of imprisonment exists — Crown seeking significant custody and range identification required — Availability dependent on Bundy interpretation — Conditional sentence availability to be determined
  Constitution — Charter challenges — Sentencing stage discretion — Whether to entertain a Constitutional challenge to s. 320.2(a)(ii) now — Judicial economy and flexibility discussed in R. v. Lloyd and R. v. I.K. — Issue has not yet ripened pending Bundy — Court may decline where no real bearing — Constitutional challenge deferred

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-03-04 Saltaji v. Pinnacle Uptown Six Limited Partnership, 2026 ONSC 1271 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appellate jurisdiction — Arbitration — Divisional Court jurisdiction over private arbitration — Do appeal, leave to appeal, and judicial review lie to the Divisional Court under the Arbitration Act, 1991 where appeal rights were waived? — Agreement “final and binding” precluding appeals — ONHWPA inapplicable following arbitrator’s jurisdiction ruling — Proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1991 — Proceedings quashed
  Procedure — Appeals — Effect of jurisdictional ruling — Arbitrator’s determination of governing regime — Does the arbitrator’s finding that ONHWPA s. 17(4) does not apply dictate the appeal route? — Appeal routes governed by Arbitration Act, 1991 — Grandfield Homes v. Chen and Radewych applied — Challenge must proceed, if at all, under Arbitration Act framework — Motion granted
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Availability — Private arbitration — Is judicial review available for a decision of a private arbitrator? — Judicial review not available for private decision makers — Adams v. Canada and Universal Settlements considered — Attempted judicial review characterized as collateral attack on arbitral decision — Judicial review proceeding quashed
  Procedure — Motions — Motion to quash — Proper approach where jurisdiction absent — Should proceedings be quashed when the Court lacks jurisdiction? — Jurisdiction is a binary question — If no jurisdiction, proceedings destined to fail — Davidson v. CCC 73 followed — Minimal-merit threshold inapplicable to jurisdictional defect — Proceedings quashed
• 2026-03-04 Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Construction — Prompt payment adjudication — Holdback and scope — Whether “written notice of lien” is required to trigger notice holdback under s. 24(2) — Could multiple disputes raised as set‑offs convert a single “matter” into prohibited multiple matters under s. 13.5(4) — Contract certification and payment obligations applied — Adjudicator’s interpretation reasonable — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Construction Act, s. 13.18(5)5 — Did procedures accord with Part II.1 and was any prejudicial unfairness shown — Order of submissions, provision of contract under s. 13.11, timelines, complexity of set‑off delay claim considered — No identified procedural breach causing prejudice — Standard of correctness for fairness applied — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review grounds — Fraud — Construction Act, s. 13.18(5)7 — Was the determination made as a result of fraud, including alleged false statutory declarations — Evidence of unpaid subcontractors contextualised by owner’s non‑payment — No misrepresentation found to have induced decision — Fresh evidence not admitted where impermissible — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Bias — Reasonable apprehension — Did refusal to provide ZOOM recording, procedural rulings, or tone of reasons demonstrate bias — No obligation to record or release argument — Strong presumption of impartiality not rebutted — Reasons responsive and point‑first — No prejudicial unfairness established — Application dismissed
• 2026-03-02 Mehedi v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 942 (CanLII)
  Key Words: leave — motion — costs — extension — awarded
• 2026-02-27 Doherty-Masters v. Waterloo Catholic District School Board, 2026 ONSC 997 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Was the board’s determination that the trustee breached the Code of Conduct reasonable under Vavilov — Absence of reasons, record-based review applied — Education Act, s. 218.3, MCIA context considered — Findings unclear, evidence did not support appearance of conflict — Reliance on inaccurate media report rejected — Decisions quashed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Content and compliance — Whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness in the board process — Baker framework acknowledged, variable duty considered — No deference on fairness issues — Given unreasonableness, court found no need to determine fairness question — Sanctions fell with breach finding — Issue not decided
  Administrative law — Remedies — Remittal — Should the matter be remitted to the board after setting aside the decisions — Parties agreed remittal unnecessary — Changes to Education Act process and elapsed suspension period noted — Appropriate remedy to quash findings and sanctions without remittal — Matter not remitted
• 2026-02-27 Gajewczyk v. Cipher Pharmaceuticals Inc., 2026 ONSC 1089 (CanLII)
  Key Words: writing — motion — leave — dismissed — costs