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

• 2026-08-05 Plante (Litigation Guardian) v. Dynamic Functional Solutions Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 4502 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Pleadings and jurisdiction — Motion to strike under rr. 21.01 and 25.11 — Whether statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action or is abusive — High threshold to strike applied, issues to be tried identified — Partial striking with leave to amend — Claims in negligence, unlawful means, and inducing breach proceed — Motion otherwise dismissed
  Insurance — Automobile insurance benefits — Statutory scheme — Insurance Act, s. 280 — Does LAT’s exclusive jurisdiction over entitlement to SABS bar court tort claims against non-insurer assessors? — Stegenga and Yang distinguished — LAT lacks remedial jurisdiction for general damages against non-insurers — Superior Court jurisdiction confirmed
  Civil liability — Economic torts — Unlawful means and inducing breach — Do pleadings disclose viable claims for unlawful means and inducing breach of contract based on altered s. 44 reports? — Bram framework applied — Contract with insurer pleaded, knowledge and intentional interference alleged — Claims allowed to proceed
  Civil liability — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation — Can the plaintiff sue assessors for misrepresentations made to the insurer absent reliance by the plaintiff? — Elements from Bruno Appliance and Cognos considered — Relationship too remote, no reliance by plaintiff — Direct misrepresentation claims struck with leave to amend
  Procedure — Abuse of process — Parallel tribunal proceedings — Is the action a collateral attack on LAT determinations and should the court stay or defer? — Overlap of facts distinguished from issues — Benefits entitlement reserved to LAT — No stay, but trial deferred pending final SABS determinations — Abuse of process not found
• 2026-08-05 LeVan v. Hatton-Bauer, 2026 ONSC 4526 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Divided success — Whether divided success on consolidated applications warrants no order as to costs — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131, and Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 57.01 considered — Lowndes v. Summitt Ford Ltd. applied on substantially divided success — Success mixed on prescriptive easement and restoration obligations — No order as to costs
  Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Exercise of discretion under s. 131 and r. 57.01 — Importance to both parties, factual complexity, neutral conduct and consolidation noted — No offers to settle, comparative costs not determinative — Principle of indemnity and reasonable expectation addressed — Litigation necessary to resolve land use issue — No order as to costs
• 2026-08-05 Manorcore Group Inc. v. IBL Structural Steel Limited, 2026 ONSC 4517 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Construction — Tendering — Contract A and Contract B — Whether Contract B came into existence upon acceptance of the contractor’s bid — Communication of acceptance unnecessary in tendering environment — Ron Engineering and Naylor Group applied to contractor and subcontractor — Subcontractor bound to maintain its bid and enter Contract B — Breach of contractual obligations found — Judgment for plaintiff
  Construction — Subcontracts — Reasonable objection — Whether refusal to sign a Letter of Intent or perceived threat of court action is a reasonable objection — CCA1 dispute resolution and negotiation obligations incorporated by reference — Failure to negotiate disputes under CCA1 considered — Objection not reasonable on the facts — Breach confirmed — Judgment for plaintiff
  Contracts — Damages — Measure of loss for breach of subcontract arising from tender — Difference between amount paid to replacement subcontractor and Revised Quotation — Evidence of reimbursement by owner speculative — Prejudgment interest awarded under Courts of Justice Act — Quantum calculated from stipulated price contract and bids — Damages awarded
• 2026-08-05 De Miranda et al. v. King, 2026 ONSC 4520 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Discovery — Non-party examination — Rule 31.10 — Whether leave should be granted to examine the non-party solicitor — Requirement to show inability to obtain information under r. 31.10(2)(a) — Availability of information from plaintiff and refusal to waive privilege assessed — Interests of justice and fairness under r. 31.10(2)(b)(c) considered — Motion dismissed
  Evidence — Privilege — Solicitor-client privilege — Joint retainer — Whether privilege bars disclosure to spouse not party to joint retainer — Privilege enduring after death considered with Descoteaux and Goodman Estate — Wills and joint interest exceptions distinguished — Communications between solicitor and joint clients not privileged inter se, but protected against non-client spouse — Examination for discovery refused
  Evidence — Hearsay — Non-party solicitor’s testimony — Whether hearsay concerns preclude non-party discovery — Admissibility of the solicitor’s evidence characterised as hearsay raised — Determination of admissibility deferred to trial judge — Non-party compellable at trial but scope of testimony for trial court — Motion for leave dismissed, admissibility to be determined at trial
• 2026-08-05 Wu v. MEGA International Commerce, 2026 ONSC 4539 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Pleadings — Amendments — Rule 26.01 — Whether leave to amend should be granted after inordinate delay — Presumption of non-compensable prejudice arising from lengthy, unexplained delay — Failure to rebut presumption or adequately explain delay — No evidence of preserved witness evidence or lack of prejudice — Motion to amend dismissed — Leave to amend refused
  Limitation periods — Discoverability — Amendments — Limitations Act, 2002, ss. 4, 5 — Are new causes of action statute-barred given service of the motion record date? — Motion deemed served when proposed Amended Statement of Claim delivered — No triable issue on discoverability established — Claims based on productions available since 2016 — Amendments statute-barred
  Evidence — Admissibility — Hearsay — Rule 53.03 experts — Should Sucher Reports and derivative appraisals be excluded before trial? — Reports not filed on motion record — Not proffered under Rule 53.03 — Possible non-hearsay purpose or principled exception considered by trial judge — Pre-emptive exclusion inappropriate — Motion to strike evidence dismissed

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-08-05 West Carleton Community Alliance v. City of Ottawa, 2026 ONSC 3824 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Municipalities — By-laws — Bad faith — Allegation that Council acted in bad faith in passing Zoning By-law permitting BESS — Whether rushed timelines, suspension of Rules of Procedure, and preference for Proponent establish improper purpose — Reliance on Minister’s letter and IESO timelines considered — Official Plan s. 4.12 noted — Bad faith not established — Application dismissed
  Municipalities — Planning — Conformity and public meeting — Whether Zoning By-law failed to conform to Official Plan s. 4.12(8) and breached Planning Act, s. 24 and s. 34(12) — Sufficiency of studies for zoning stage versus site plan stage — ARAC public meeting and extensive submissions considered — Staff report supported amendment — Council entitled to rely on studies — By-law upheld
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard and scope — Presumptive reasonableness under Vavilov — Scope of review of municipal by-laws considered with Auer and s. 272 of the Municipal Act, 2001 — Political versus adjudicative functions recognised — Court declines to assess policy merits of by-law — Reasonableness applied to process and good faith allegations — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Standing — Public interest standing and forum — Criteria from Ontario Place Protectors applied — Serious and justiciable issue, genuine interest, reasonable and effective means — Discretion to proceed with judicial review despite availability of s. 273 Municipal Act remedy, considering Yatar and Strickland — Standing granted and Court proceeds — Application dismissed
• 2026-07-31 2524991 Ontario Corporation and Qingxin Shao v. SvN Architects + Planners Inc., 2026 ONSC 4344 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Security for costs motion — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 61.06 — Whether security for costs should be ordered pending appeal — Criteria under r. 61.06(1)(a) and alternative basis under r. 61.06(1)(c) considered — Assessment of merits, vexatiousness, and recoverability of costs — Security refused — Motion dismissed with costs to the appellants
  Procedure — Appeals — Security for costs under r. 61.06(1)(a) — Are the prerequisites met: frivolous and vexatious appeal and insufficient assets to pay appeal costs — Good reason to believe appeal is frivolous but not vexatious — No need to address assets once vexatiousness not established — Security under r. 61.06(1)(a) refused
  Procedure — Appeals — Good reason to believe standard — Heidari v. Naghshbandi applied — Does the tentative assessment support a finding of frivolous appeal — Trial findings on credibility and unjust enrichment support absence of merit — Proposed amendments unlikely to change outcome — Good reason to believe appeal frivolous established
  Procedure — Appeals — Other good reason under r. 61.06(1)(c) — Should security be ordered because of low prospect of success and difficulty collecting costs — Very high threshold of nearly impossible to collect not met — Concerns about recovery insufficient — Security under r. 61.06(1)(c) denied
  Procedure — Costs — Costs of motion — How should costs be awarded following dismissal of security for costs motion — Appropriate conduct of appeal noted — Parties’ agreed all‑inclusive amount accepted — Costs awarded to the appellants in the agreed sum — Motion dismissed with costs to the appellants
• 2026-07-30 Guiste v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 4419 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Professional responsibility — Discipline — Incivility and competence — Application of Groia framework — Whether findings of incivility, incompetence and failure to act with integrity were properly made — Balance between civility and resolute advocacy assessed — Allegations of racism and abuse of process considered — Findings upheld by Appeal Panel — No palpable and overriding error — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Particulars and jurisdiction — Whether Hearing Panel erred by relying on allegations not set out in the Notice of Application — Screening by PAC under Law Society Act and By‑Law 11 addressed — Violette standard for sufficiency of particulars adopted in Brooks — No procedural unfairness or jurisdictional error — Appeal dismissed
  Evidence — Expert evidence — Admissibility and weight — Competence of criminal defence counsel — White Burgess and Abbey two‑step applied — Impartiality concerns rejected, mentoring history and bencher association analysed — Opinions on standards of practice found reliable and helpful — Gatekeeping and cost‑benefit met — Admission confirmed
  Professional responsibility — Penalty and costs — Costs in discipline proceedings — Whether costs award unreasonable, disproportionate or punitive — Perrelli factors, financial hardship and proportionality considered by tribunal — Deference to costs discretion under Casella and Reid — Payment schedule addressed — Costs award upheld — Costs appeal dismissed
• 2026-07-29 Aubin v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 4377 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Fettering of discretion — Whether Subcommittee treated non‑binding Guidelines as binding — Reasonableness under Vavilov — Use of internal policies versus statutory discretion under Law Society Act, s. 51(5) — Decision letter language of “defined” loss and “without jurisdiction” — Failure to consider relevant factors beyond Guideline 8 — Application granted, decision set aside and remitted
  Statutory interpretation — Law Society Act — Meaning of “loss” in s. 51(5) — Does “loss” extend beyond misappropriated trust funds to losses in connection with professional business? — Guidelines cannot restrict statutory term — Loss arising from dishonesty in connection with professional business recognized — Scope of compensation authority clarified — Decision set aside and remitted
• 2026-07-27 Berger v. York Region District School Board, 2026 ONSC 4153 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Labour and employment — Judicial review — Exclusive jurisdiction — Whether dispute arises from the interpretation, application, administration or violation of the collective agreement — Policy incorporated into collective agreement — Workplace harassment investigation and outcomes under Policy — Remedy via duty of fair representation at the OLRB — Courts lack overlapping jurisdiction under Weber — Application quashed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Amenability — Are internal HRO letters of a public nature under the Judicial Review Procedure Act? — Arms‑length office within School Board not a separate legal entity — Characterization as internal workplace decisions considered — Second basis unnecessary after finding exclusive labour jurisdiction — No determination required
  Procedure — Motions to quash — Threshold — Plain and obvious or beyond doubt that application cannot succeed — Jurisdictional defect assessed at outset per Deeb v. IIROC — Whether to compel production of a record before determining jurisdiction — Cross‑motion rendered unnecessary — Application quashed and cross‑motion not addressed