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

• 2026-08-12 R. v. Ali, 2026 ONSC 4593 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter — Search and seizure — Whether there was a reasonable expectation of privacy in condominium elevator CCTV — Section 8 engaged by warrantless seizure of Video — Common areas, visibility of cameras, likelihood of police access considered — Subject matter narrow, no biographical core — No reasonable expectation of privacy — Charter s. 8 not engaged — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Search warrants — Information to obtain — Whether ITO with paragraph 34a provided reasonable and probable grounds under Criminal Code, s. 487(1) — Photographs from elevator Video linking clothing before and after robbery — Context of investigation and corroborating Ronson Video — Presumptively valid order upheld — Warrant valid
  Procedure — Informations to obtain — Amplification — Can the Crown amplify the ITO with affiant’s evidence about consent from on‑duty security guard? — Evidence of interaction with security described — Insufficient basis to establish valid third‑party consent — Amplification unnecessary to sustain warrant — Warrant stands
  Rights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — If s. 8 breach found, should Video and seized items be excluded under s. 24(2)? — Grant factors applied — Belief in authority of security guard, absence of bad faith, minor breach — Real evidence important to adjudication on the merits — Evidence admitted
• 2026-08-12 TD Bank v. 1633092 Ontario Ltd., 2026 ONSC 4620 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Damages — Causation and remoteness — Was the Bank’s failure to advance the full CSBFL the effective cause of 163’s losses? — Expectation interest and effective cause applied (Bank of America, Sunrise Sunset) — Uncollectible related‑party loan and insufficient equity found — Profitability assumptions reduced and valuation critiques accepted — Damages nil
  Contracts — Guarantees and shareholders — Honest performance and negligent misrepresentation — Can guarantors and shareholders claim despite guarantees and the rule in Foss v. Harbottle? — Waivers of duty, set‑off and negligence in guarantees enforced — No special circumstances or dishonest performance established — Separate shareholder claims not maintainable — Claims dismissed
  Civil liability — Deceit and negligent misrepresentation — HELOC interest change and CSBFL communications — Is the Bank liable for deceit or negligent misrepresentation? — Accord and satisfaction forecloses HELOC appraisal complaints — No dishonesty or careless disregard proven, no detrimental reliance under Cognos — Bank employees acted transparently — Claims dismissed
  Contracts — Remedies — Punitive and exemplary damages — Are punitive or exemplary damages warranted for loan administration and enforcement? — No malicious, oppressive or high‑handed conduct under Whitten — W. Got factors inapplicable to the Bank’s dealings — Efforts to assist after the fire recognized — Punitive and exemplary damages denied
• 2026-08-12 Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2026 ONSC 4668 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Court records — Transcripts — Vexatious litigant requesting transcripts — Should the Superior Court authorise production of transcripts requested by a vexatious litigant — History of malicious internet harassment and breach of orders — No purpose for appeal stated — Protection of administration of justice emphasised — Requests since June 2026 not authorised — Requests for transcripts denied
  Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory orders — Does a prior Court of Appeal order directing transcript production remain operative after the appeal was dismissed — Order of Doherty J.A. characterised as spent — Appeal dismissed by Deputy Registrar years ago — Enforcement of any appellate direction lies with the Court of Appeal — Spent interlocutory order not enforced
  Procedure — Abuse of process — Inherent jurisdiction — May the court exercise inherent jurisdiction to prevent collateral attacks and abuse of process by refusing transcript requests — Pattern of re‑litigation and collateral attack identified — Vigilance to protect victims and scarce resources — Inherent jurisdiction invoked to withhold transcripts — Production refused
  Procedure — Appeals — Record on appeal — Which court should determine what transcripts are required for a pending contempt appeal — Open appeal file noted on revived contempt matter — Court of Appeal best placed to decide transcript necessity — No avalanche of unnecessary transcripts authorised — Referral to Court of Appeal direction contemplated — Direction reserved to appellate court
• 2026-08-12 R. v. Clarke, 2026 ONSC 4671 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Appeals — Uttering threats (Criminal Code, s. 264.1) — Should the conviction be set aside due to error in appointing s. 486.3 counsel — Emails containing threats proven — Defence described as “guilty with an explanation” — No substantial wrongdoing or miscarriage of justice — No different outcome shown — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Witnesses — Appointment of counsel under s. 486.3 — Did the application judge apply a presumptive test and reverse the onus — Discretionary test under s. 486.3(3) with factors in subs. (4) referenced — Relevant factors considered — No substantial wrongdoing or miscarriage of justice — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Ineffective assistance — s. 486.3 counsel — Was cross-examination by appointed counsel ineffective — Counsel prepared, opportunity to confer provided, adjournment available — No evidence performance fell below reasonable standard — Documents required authentication by defence witness — No meaningful prejudice established — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — New trial — Prejudice and outcome — Did the appointment or counsel’s performance affect trial fairness or outcome — Defence essentially an admission of the facts, “guilty with an explanation” — No request for adjournment — Could not be said outcome would have been different absent appointment — New trial denied — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-08-12 Handa v. Cordiero, 2026 ONSC 4672 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Summary judgment — Simplified procedure — Hryniak v. Mauldin applied to determine whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial — Combined Air caveat and rule 76.04(1) 2 cross‑examination prohibition considered — Whether the record permits necessary findings of fact — Proportional, fair and just determination not possible on motion — Motion dismissed
  Evidence — Affidavits — Information and belief — Rule 20.02(1) adverse inference where party fails to provide evidence of persons with personal knowledge — Affidavits sworn by mortgage broker, not the plaintiff — No proof of advance, incomplete accounting, receipts after alleged default, unsatisfactory mortgage calculation statement — Whether evidentiary burden for summary judgment met — Summary judgment denied
  Security interests — Mortgages — Default and renewal — Registered second mortgage, one‑year term, balance due date May 5, 2012, interest at 15 per cent — Whether the Mortgage was renewed and on what terms given acceptance of payments after balance due date — Whether default occurred in light of subsequent payments and absence of demand — Issues to proceed to trial

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-08-12 Donegani v. Facebook, Inc., 2026 ONSC 4657 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Class actions — Class definition — Whether the proposed class definition was workable and supported by some basis in fact — Litigation plan and Master Class List considered under CPA s. 5(1) — Overinclusive and underinclusive membership concerns noted — Assumption of acceptable definition without deciding — Appeal dismissed
  Contracts — Class actions common issues — Breach of contract — Whether breach of contract could be certified as a common issue under the CPA — Rumley guidance on overly general questions applied — PIPEDA and standard form contract terms addressed as common — Individual inquiries required to determine breach for each class member — Appeal dismissed
  Contracts — Remedies — Disgorgement for breach of contract — Whether disgorgement could be determined as a common issue — Atlantic Lottery principles on exceptional disgorgement applied — Adequacy of compensatory damages not determinable in common given pleaded losses — Common issue on disgorgement refused — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Class actions — Preferable procedure — Whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure under the CPA — No evidence of compensatory loss identified in record — Behaviour modification through regulatory proceedings considered — Manageability and judicial economy weighed with deference on appeal — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-08-11 Maghnam v. Maghnam, 2026 ONSC 4651 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Stays pending appeal — RJR‑MacDonald test — Should a stay pending appeal be granted — Low merits threshold met but appeal weak — Presumptively correct order considered, serious issue not frivolous — Factors assessed together per Ducharme v. Hudson — No basis to suspend order pending appellate review — Motion for stay dismissed
  Family — Matrimonial home — Sale and possession — Should the sale order be amended to allow occupancy — Sole ownership and possessory and consent protections under Family Law Act ss. 19, 21, 23 — Listing, cooperation and case management directed — Appellant to reside during listing subject to maintaining sale‑ready condition and carrying costs — Sale process amended
  Procedure — Stays pending appeal — Irreparable harm — Did refusal of a stay cause irreparable harm — Constructive trust and unjust enrichment attach to preserved sale proceeds in trust — Medical evidence insufficient to show inability to move — Mahr‑related entitlement unpled and weak on present record — Harm largely compensable — Irreparable harm not established — Stay refused
  Procedure — Stays pending appeal — Balance of convenience — Does the balance of convenience favour a stay — Comparative prejudice weighed, Respondent’s ongoing financial hardship and children’s needs accepted — Status quo not equitable — Preservation of proceeds mitigates prejudice to Appellant — Sale to proceed while claims continue to trial — Balance of convenience favours Respondent — Stay denied
• 2026-08-07 Fulton v. Guan et al, 2026 ONSC 2757 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 15(1) — Disproportionate impact — Whether tribunal erred in finding no evidence that s. 21(1) of the Human Rights Code disproportionately impacts persons with disabilities — Data poverty and qualitative context overlooked — Built‑in headwinds and reasonable inferences required per Fraser and Kanyinda — First step met, tribunal decision set aside — Application allowed, matter remitted
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — What standard applies to a tribunal’s Charter equality analysis — Correctness for constitutional questions and mixed fact and law (Vavilov, Société des casinos) — No deference where findings determine whether facts satisfy legal tests — Correctness standard applied
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Remedies — Appropriate remedy after error on s. 15(1) step one — Whether court should conduct remaining Charter analysis or remit — Court of review declines to decide second step and s. 1 without tribunal’s analysis of home statute — Matter remitted to Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario — Remittal ordered
• 2026-08-06 Aubin v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 4431 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Judicial review — Practice and procedure — Costs
• 2026-08-06 The Jos. Rashotte Company Limited v. Quinte Conservation Authority, 2026 ONSC 4554 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Costs on judicial review — Administrative tribunal — Whether costs should be awarded against an administrative tribunal absent exceptional circumstances — Distinctive adjudicative role recognised, tribunals ordinarily neither recover nor pay costs — Brown and Evans cited, Reynolds and Faruk applied — Tribunal acted in good faith and conscientiously throughout — No exceptional circumstances established — Costs denied
  Administrative law — Tribunal conduct — Adversarial role — Did the tribunal assume an adversarial role warranting costs? — Tribunal proposed a rehearing early, consented to relief, and did not defend merits — Advancement of procedural or jurisdictional positions permissible, Weyerhaeuser referenced — No casting of the tribunal in an adversarial position — No order as to costs
  Procedure — Costs discretion — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131 — Rule 57.01 — Does relief granted on consent without a determination on the merits support costs? — Costs fundamentally discretionary, focus on fair and reasonable amount — “Costs follow the event” tempered in judicial review of adjudicative bodies — Relief achieved without merits adjudication — No order as to costs
  Procedure — Costs principles — Functus officio — Do functus officio concerns justify departure from established tribunal costs principles? — Rehearing could proceed without establishing invalidity on the record — Judicial review not unnecessary, but functus officio argument not a basis to depart from general rule — No exceptional circumstances arising from functus concerns — Costs denied