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

• 2026-03-11 Li v. Bai et al., 2026 ONSC 1442 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Mareva injunction — Whether the Mareva order should be dissolved as against the defendants — Criteria from Chitel v. Rothbart and RJR‑MacDonald applied — Undertaking as to damages noted — Reference to assess damages from injunction ordered — Costs awarded to defendants — Mareva order dissolved as against the defendants
  Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Changed circumstances — Are the factual underpinnings for the Mareva order no longer valid on the developed record? — De facto control and knowledge findings undermined — Payments redirected at investor’s instruction accepted — No direct dealings between plaintiff and defendants — Davenport Project explanation credited — Factual foundation for strong prima facie case and dissipation risk not made out — Mareva order dissolved
  Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Harm to defendant — Do alleged harms constitute real and pervasive or irreparable harm warranting dissolution? — Evidence of reputation damage and investor reluctance found insufficient — Paucity of concrete loss evidence — Shareholder capital infusions noted — Undertaking as to damages available — Harm threshold not met — Mareva maintained on this factor alone rejected — Harm insufficient to dissolve injunction
  Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Balance of convenience — Does the balance of convenience favour continuing or dissolving the order? — Security already sufficient to satisfy claim — Weak prima facie case and no real risk of dissipation — Variation proposal rejected absent foundational elements — Assets available from individual defendants and outstanding investments — Balance favours dissolution — Mareva order dissolved
• 2026-03-11 Aenos Food Services Inc. v. Tierney et al, 2026 ONSC 1478 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction of associate judges — Whether associate judge could require leave for discovery motions under Rule 1.05 or Rule 37.13 despite Rule 37.16 — Rule 76 context and discovery limits considered — Courts of Justice Act, s. 86.1(6) and Rules of Civil Procedure applied — Jurisdiction to impose term found — Appeal granted in part
  Procedure — Procedural fairness — Notice and right to be heard — Was it unfair to restrict discovery motions without prior notice or submissions — Parties surprised and no opportunity to address proposed restriction — Authorities on fairness applied, including Sobeski and Abdullahi — Lack of procedural fairness established — Order set aside
• 2026-03-11 Duong v. Nguyen, 2026 ONSC 1484 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Reference — Authority to sign — Rule 54, Rule 55 engaged by prior sale order — Whether to grant the Respondent sole signing authority to avoid a failed real estate transaction — Applicant’s non‑participation and communication failures established — Family Law Rules, r.1(7) applied by analogy — Sole signing authority granted — Sale to close — Order confirmed
  Property — Real property — Closing adjustments — Directions for payment of sale expenses and discharge of encumbrances — Funds Summary, Statement of Adjustments, commission invoice and mortgage discharge reviewed — What directions should issue for taxes, utilities, municipal levies and legal fees — Payment of encumbrances including B2B Bank mortgage directed — Solicitor instructed accordingly — Directions issued
  Property — Co‑ownership — Distribution of proceeds — Calculation and allocation between tenants in common under prior order — How to calculate and distribute net proceeds, including mortgage and insurance adjustments — Percentages of ownership applied, mortgage and insurance contributions accounted since specified date — Net proceeds quantified and apportioned — Shortfalls or overages shared equally — Distribution ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Family Law Rules — Whether the Respondent is entitled to substantial indemnity costs of the Reference — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131 discretion and presumption of costs to successful party under r.24 — Applicant’s unreasonable conduct found — Substantial indemnity scale appropriate — Costs fixed and payable from Applicant’s share — Costs awarded
• 2026-03-11 R. v. Busch, 2026 ONSC 1487 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Assault — Intent — Whether the blow to the complainant’s face was accidental or a direct hit — Evidence of a bloody nose and corroboration by police — Trial judge rejected the appellant’s account and applied R. v. W.(D.) — Findings of intentional strike upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Reasonableness of verdict — Summary conviction appeal — Whether the verdict was unreasonable or any miscarriage of justice occurred — Narrative errors characterised as minor and not affecting credibility findings — Deference to trial judge’s assessment — Appeal dismissed
  Evidence — Credibility — Accused’s review of disclosure — Did comments about reviewing Crown disclosure improperly taint credibility? — Remarks situated within overall credibility assessment — Inconsistencies and off‑topic answers considered — Corroboration by officer regarding blood on face reinforced findings — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Standard of review — Factual findings — Palpable and overriding error threshold — Appellate court not to substitute its own view of the evidence — Deference emphasised, citing R. v. Sheahan and R. v. Doyle — Trial findings open on the record and supported by corroboration — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-03-10 WCC No. 21 v. Robertson, 2026 ONSC 1393 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Common elements — Laches and acquiescence — Whether the Corporation is estopped from enforcing s. 98 of the Condominium Act, 1998 — Knowledge and acquiescence inferred from decades of annual walk-throughs — Waiver clause in declaration considered but distinguished — Equitable estoppel and prejudice to unit owners assessed — Application to compel removal dismissed
  Property — Common elements — Remedies and compliance — Should the court order removal of the Pad or require a s. 98 agreement — Section 98 mechanism for additions to exclusive use common elements — Concrete pad longstanding and in good condition — Balanced relief favouring registration and ongoing compliance — Section 98 agreement ordered, removal not compelled
  Business associations — Corporate governance — Good faith of directors — Did the Corporation act honestly and in good faith under s. 37 and can it rely on the business judgment rule — Refusal to consider alternatives and lack of supporting evidence — Selective enforcement concerns — Board’s decision not entitled to deference — Application dismissed and business judgment rule not applied

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-03-11 Agneca Inc. v. The City of Toronto, 2026 ONSC 1312 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review record — Record before decision‑maker and exceptions — Whether affidavit evidence may be admitted to provide background, show absence of evidence, or address procedural fairness, improper purpose or fraud — Keeprite Workers’ Independent Union v. Keeprite Products Ltd. applied — Panel versus motion judge roles and Rockcliffe Park guidance — Portions admitted for panel’s assessment — Motion to strike partly granted
  Evidence — Affidavits — Admissibility and relevance on judicial review — Whether materials not before Council, inflammatory commentary, unattributed documents, post‑decision photographs or blog posts should be struck — Unidentified provenance and reliability assessed — Emails predating Council meeting partially allowed with redactions — Technical reports left for panel’s use — Evidence struck in part
  Procedure — Preliminary motions — Motion to strike portions of application record — Whether City required to refile applicant’s record and to file Record of Proceedings by affidavit — Balancing definition of record against panel’s role — Record of Proceedings accepted as filed — No need to refile applicant’s materials — Leave to refile limited affidavits granted — Objection dismissed, costs awarded to City
• 2026-03-11 Sarpong v LECA, 2026 ONSC 1365 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Disclosure — Complainant entitlement under PSA s. 66(2) — Whether limited disclosure and redactions rendered the process procedurally unfair — Reliance on report summary rather than redacted email upheld — No general right to discovery on complaint investigation — Absence of unlocated or extraneous materials not unfair — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Standard from Vavilov applied, deference to factual findings — Whether alleged inaccuracies or inconsistencies rendered the Director’s decision unreasonable — Minor wording issues not central to outcome — FedEx position, vehicle evidence, summons and arrest context reasonably addressed — Decision rational and logical — Application dismissed
  Rights and freedoms — Charter — Sections 7 and 15 — Whether complainant’s Charter rights were breached by the Director’s decision — Issues not raised before the Director and unsupported on the record — Nature of complainant’s interests considered — Tests under ss. 7 and 15 not met on these facts — Application dismissed
• 2026-03-11 West Carleton Community Alliance v. The City of Ottawa et al, 2026 ONSC 1372 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Stays pending judicial review — R.J.R.-Macdonald test — Serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience — Whether to stay operation of zoning by-law amendment pending application — Environmental harm evidence assessed as speculative — Public interest and legislative deference considered, Catalyst Paper cited — Balance of convenience favoured City and Proponent — Stay dismissed
  Limitation periods — Judicial review — Time limit to commence — Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 5(1), s. 5(2) — Is the challenge to the Municipal Support Resolution out of time and should time be extended? — No need to quash MSR acknowledged — No extension of time where no prejudice test met — Portion of application struck
  Administrative law — Judicial review grounds — Municipal by-laws — Municipal Act, 2001, s. 272, s. 273(1) — Are reasonableness and common law procedural fairness grounds available against a zoning by-law? — Planning Act, s. 34(12) statutory consultation engaged — Common law fairness references struck — Limited reasonableness allegations struck — Some issues left for panel — Motion to strike partly allowed
  Evidence — Judicial review record — Opinion evidence — Keeprite exceptions, Sierra Club principles — Should lay critiques of expert studies and technical methodologies be struck as impermissible opinion? — Affidavits critiquing environmental, hydrogeological and noise reports inadmissible without qualified experts — Portions of affidavits struck, limited procedural content preserved — Motion to strike evidence partly allowed
• 2026-03-11 Dorcil v. Wawanesa Insurance et al, 2026 ONSC 1446 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Delay in reasons — Whether delay in releasing Tribunal decisions rendered them unreasonable or procedurally unfair — Presumptive standard of reasonableness applied under Vavilov (paras. 23-25) — No authority establishing that delay of several months alone makes reasons unreasonable — Record and reasons reviewed and found adequate — Application dismissed
  Insurance — Automobile insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits — Catastrophic impairment — SABS, s. 3.1(1)7 — Whether rejection of accident-related sleep impairment and a 9% whole person impairment was unreasonable — Tribunal found lack of causal evidence and inconsistency in reports of sleep complaints — Catastrophic impairment threshold of 55 percent not met — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reasonableness — Misapprehension of evidence — Alleged error attributing 9 percent sleep impairment rating to wrong assessor — Tribunal clarified on reconsideration that the rating originated from the neurologist’s report and explained reference to an executive summary — Reasons coherent, justified and intelligible under Vavilov — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reasons — Omission to refer to evidence — Whether failure to address family physician and daughter’s evidence rendered decisions unreasonable — Decision maker not required to address every piece of evidence, per Vavilov para. 301 and Newfoundland Nurses — Omissions not material and would not have changed the result — Application dismissed
• 2026-03-11 Leaf v. Wang, 2026 ONSC 1503 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — What is the appropriate standard of review on this appeal — Correctness on questions of law and palpable and overriding error on findings of fact — Adequacy of reasons assessed in context of Small Claims Court — Authorities applied, Housen v. Nikolaisen, Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. — Standard confirmed
  Lease and tenancy — Jurisdiction — Small Claims Court and Landlord and Tenant Board — Did the Small Claims Court err in finding exclusive jurisdiction of the Board — Pre‑tenancy anticipatory breach and damages for hotel, storage and moving — Reference to Lamarche v. Ko and Bill 184 — Exclusive jurisdiction not established — Dismissal for want of jurisdiction set aside
  Statutory interpretation — Residential Tenancies Act — Bill 184 amendments — Do compensation provisions cover pre‑contractual breach before tenancy commences — Provisions reviewed, ss. 52, 54(1)‑(2), 57 — No provision addressing damages claimed for pre‑tenancy breach — Basis for exclusive jurisdiction not identified — Interpretation favouring court’s jurisdiction — Exclusive jurisdiction not grounded in cited provisions
  Procedure — Appellate remedies — Courts of Justice Act, s. 134 — Should the case be decided on appeal or remitted — No evidence received and no factual findings below — New trial before a different trial judge ordered — Evidence to be tested under the Rules of the Small Claims Court — Appeal allowed and matter remitted