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

• 2026-06-08 Sinclair v. Sinclair, 2026 ONSC 3361 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Spousal support — Post‑separation adjustments — Divorce Act, s. 15.2 objectives applied — Compensatory and non‑compensatory support considered per Bracklow v. Bracklow — Basement rental income accounted for in sharing carrying costs — Equalization acknowledged by prior order — Periodic support ordered with retroactive component — Alternative lump sum canvassed — No order for costs — Support ordered and post‑separation adjustments fixed
  Family — Property and support — Post‑separation adjustments — Are carrying costs shared net of basement rental income? — Saroli v. Saroli followed on sharing from separation to disposition — Respondent’s credibility on rent rejected — Financial statement rent accepted — Rental income attributed and set off — Post‑separation adjustments recalculated — Adjusted amount fixed
  Family — Support — Imputation of income — Whether the Applicant’s income can be imputed at the level urged by the Respondent — Drygala v. Pauli requires evidentiary foundation — Primary caregiving history and limited work experience weighed — Capacity for minimum wage accepted — High imputation sought by Respondent refused — Income imputed on modest evidence‑based basis
  Family — Spousal support — Entitlement and duration — Divorce Act, s. 15.2(6) — Does the Applicant have compensatory and non‑compensatory entitlement? — R.L. v. M.F. on sharing augmented capacity — Fifteen‑year marriage, primary caregiving, decline in standard of living — Mid‑range support selected — Periodic payments ordered for a fixed multi‑year term — Retroactive support awarded
  Family — Spousal support — Lump sum vs periodic — Should support be ordered as a lump sum? — Court has discretion to order lump sum, Davis v. Crawford — Quantum identified for potential lump sum combining retroactive and ongoing — No submissions heard on lump sum — Written submissions invited within set timeline — Decision on lump sum deferred pending submissions
• 2026-06-08 Sandhu v. Dhillon, 2026 ONSC 3371 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Matrimonial home — Family Law Act, s. 18 — Was 22 Cogswell the matrimonial home at the time of separation? — Ordinary occupation and joint occupation at separation not established — Future intention to occupy insufficient — Flexible and contextual analysis applied with Peters and Oliver Estate — Sole matrimonial home found to be the basement apartment — Date of marriage deduction allowed
  Evidence — Admissions — Party admission at trial — Was the applicant’s concession a binding factual admission? — Concession that 22 Cogswell was not the matrimonial home characterised as factual — Authorities from the criminal context distinguished — No basis to disturb the admission — Deduction for pre‑marital asset preserved — Admission binding
  Evidence — Admissibility — Post‑trial submissions — Could supplementary written submissions include information not in evidence at trial? — Court confines analysis to the trial record — New assertions in supplementary submissions disregarded — Supplementary materials cannot expand evidentiary record — Determination based solely on evidence adduced at trial — Extraneous information ignored
• 2026-06-08 Atwood v. National Police Federation, 2026 ONSC 3388 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity vs partial indemnity — Should costs be awarded on a substantial indemnity or partial indemnity basis? — Successful Respondent presumptively entitled to costs — Not a case to award costs on a substantial indemnity basis — Costs ordered on a partial indemnity basis — Partial indemnity costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Factors affecting scale — Do access to justice, a dearth of jurisprudence, and the Applicant’s good faith warrant departing from the usual costs approach? — Applicant did not act in bad faith and genuinely believed his reading of the Act — Issues raised included access to justice and a novel point of law — Departure from usual approach not warranted — Partial indemnity costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum — What amount of costs should be fixed as what a losing party might reasonably anticipate having to pay? — Bill of costs and hours considered, mostly completed by junior counsel — Legal costs borne by members through member dues noted — Costs fixed on a partial indemnity scale — Costs fixed
• 2026-06-05 Nowrouzi v. Soltani, 2026 ONSC 3178 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Spousal support — Variation — Divorce Act, s. 17(4.1) — Whether material change since final consent order — Changes found: new employment, serious motor vehicle accident, parties turning 65 — Fresh analysis required, entitlement not in issue, commencement date at final order — Husband’s inability to pay central — Motion to change dismissed
  Family — Income imputation — Intentional under-employment — Whether incomes should be imputed for 2023–2026 — s. 19, Child Support Guidelines, Drygala v. Pauli applied — Husband imputed $89,000 for 2023, $100,000 for 2024, $50,000 for 2025–2026 — Wife imputed $76,981 for 2024, $66,371 for 2025, estimated $46,225 for 2026 — Spousal support denied
  Contracts — Separation agreement — Interpretation and enforcement — Does the Separation Agreement bar enforcement of the Mahr in Iran? — Agreement a global deal barring future claims in Iran — Wife breached terms and used self-help to scoop inheritance — Funds remedy any imputation error and satisfy compensatory spousal support — Separation Agreement enforced
  Procedure — Costs — Family Law Rules — Whether costs payable following dismissal — Rule 24(12) factors of proportionality and reasonableness applied — Successful party’s costs considered, no offer to settle — Husband’s failure to provide disclosure weighed against costs — No costs ordered
• 2026-06-05 Brusco v. Brusco et al, 2026 ONSC 3300 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Domestic contracts — Financial disclosure — Failure to disclose significant assets under s. 56(4)(a), Family Law Act — Whether Respondent failed to disclose significant assets, debts or other liabilities — Registered mortgages on 2 Loggers Lane and 874 Brass Winds Drive omitted — Ownership of excluded companies opaque and contradictory — Schedule A fundamentally unreliable — Agreement based on misinformation not entitled to deference — Marriage contract set aside
  Family — Domestic contracts — Understanding and independent legal advice — Whether Applicant understood the nature or consequences under s. 56(4)(b), Family Law Act — Independent Legal Advice generally provided through counsel’s detailed memo and redraft — Applicant did not understand exclusion of corporate income for support — No advice shown on s. 9 support income exclusion — Informed choice to waive statutory rights not established — Marriage contract set aside
  Family — Domestic contracts — Unconscionability — Should the agreement be set aside in accordance with the law of contract under s. 56(4)(c) — Contracts uberrimae fidei and duties of good faith — Presentation 13 days before wedding with social and financial pressure — Threat that not signing would be a disaster — Extensive waivers of property and support rights — Unconscionable circumstances found — Marriage contract set aside
  Family — Domestic contracts — Judicial discretion — Whether to exercise discretion to set aside after s. 56(4) factors engaged — Two-stage analysis from LeVan and Demchuk applied — Non-disclosure, ambiguity over excluded companies, inadequate advice on corporate income exclusion, and pressure before execution — Deficiencies not rectifiable without setting aside — Discretion exercised in favour of setting aside — Marriage contract set aside

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-05 Zolnai v. Zolnai, 2026 ONSC 2808 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Support — Enforcement — Motion to change support while in arrears — Whether Respondent may proceed despite non‑compliance with consent order — Court emphasises that orders must be obeyed — Arrears as of March 1, 2020 to be paid as condition of participation — Costs fixed by agreement — Appeal granted — Conditional participation ordered
  Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Did the motion judge reverse the onus under the r. 1(8) test? — Correct test from Pye v. Pye applied — Onus on non‑complying party per Teixeira — Error of law identified — Decision set aside — Appeal granted
  Procedure — Sanctions — Discretion — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Were there exceptional circumstances to refrain from sanctioning non‑compliance? — No exceptional circumstances found on record — Non‑compliance with consent order established — Sanction generally required absent exceptional circumstances — Sanction ordered
  Procedure — Remedies — Striking or staying — Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Appropriate remedy where significant arrears persist — Objective is to induce compliance, not eliminate adversary, per Purcaru and Rayes — Striking pleadings reserved for exceptional cases — Conditional order requiring payment of arrears as of March 1, 2020 — Conditional participation ordered
  Procedure — Appellate powers — Disposition — Courts of Justice Act, s. 134(1) — Should the appellate court decide the motion or remit? — Primary objective under FLR r. 2(3) considered — Fairness, time and resources favoured deciding on record — Rehearing would cause undue delay — Matter decided by appellate court — Appeal granted
• 2026-06-05 Pham v. Homestead Land Holdings Ltd., 2026 ONSC 3281 (CanLII)
  Key Words: moot — writing — orders — motion — represented
• 2026-06-05 Menghesha v. Gebremariam, 2026 ONSC 3265 (CanLII)
  Key Words: van — writing — motion — amended — leave
• 2026-06-05 Deokaran v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 3216 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Tribunal procedure — Appeal Division jurisdiction — Whether the Appeal Division could dismiss an unperfected appeal for delay without a Rule 17.4(1) motion — Proceeding management conference endorsements setting deadlines — Rules of Practice and Procedure applied in accordance with their purposes — Procedural decision, not a merits-based decision — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Case management — Whether a motion under Rule 17.4(1) was required — Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5 permitting action on the Tribunal’s own initiative — Rule 17.4(1) characterised as a permissive rule — Timelines to perfect the appeal ordered and missed — Dismissal for failing to perfect upheld — Appeal cannot succeed
  Administrative law — Composition of panel — Whether dismissal for delay required a five-person panel under Ontario Regulation 167/07, s. 5 — Dismissal not arising from the “hearing of an appeal” — Serra v. Serra and AMT Finance Inc. v. LaFountaine distinguished — No comparable rule to Rule 61.16(2.2) applicable — Single adjudicator’s procedural dismissal valid — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-05 Valladares v. 1396929 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONSC 3267 (CanLII)
  Key Words: unreported — writing — motion — leave — dismissed