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

• 2026-05-05 R. v. Cooney & Hamber, 2026 ONSC 2646 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Mens rea — Murder and child-abuse offences — Whether the accused intended to kill or to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death — W.(D.) instruction applied — Electronic communications and J’s evidence accepted — Post-offence internet searches considered — Ill will and persistent deprivation found — Mens rea established — Convictions entered
  Criminal and statutory offences — Homicide — Causation for constructive first degree murder — Criminal Code, ss. 229(a), 231(5), 235(1) — Was the failure to provide necessaries a substantial cause of death? — Nette and Harbottle framework applied — Severe chronic malnutrition attributable to accused — No intervening act — Causation proven — First degree murder conviction entered
  Criminal and statutory offences — Defences — Parental correction and necessity — Criminal Code, s. 43 and s. 8(3) — Do s. 43 or necessity justify confinement and zip-tie restraints? — No lawful authority for prolonged confinement — No imminent peril, reasonable alternative existed, disproportionality — Both defences rejected — Convictions entered on counts 1 and 2
  Criminal and statutory offences — Elements of offences — Unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, failure to provide necessaries, constructive first degree murder — Criminal Code, ss. 279(2), 267(a), 215(2)(a)(i), 231(5) — Were all essential elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt? — Confinement and weapon use established — Marked departure and destitute circumstances proven — Same transaction for s. 231(5) satisfied — Guilty on all counts
• 2026-05-05 Tolhurst v. Rolf C. Hagen Inc., 2026 ONSC 2678 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Class proceedings — Costs — Costs on motion dismissing proposed class action for delay under s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 — Whether the partial indemnity costs claimed are excessive — Time and effort expended by both sides assessed — Global amount not examined under a microscope — Costs awarded, modest reduction applied — Costs reduced and awarded
  Procedure — Class proceedings — Counsel conduct — Whether counsel’s inexperience with class actions and unawareness of s. 29.1 should affect costs — Defendant’s counsel not obliged to advise of Plaintiff’s time limits — Oversight characterised as Plaintiffs’ lawyers’ alone — Capable and conscientious handling otherwise noted — No costs immunity for inexperience — Costs awarded
  Procedure — Class proceedings — Dismissal for delay — Whether costs should be reduced where success turned on a new and strict time limitation — Limited judicial discretion under s. 29.1 acknowledged — Success not on the merits considered — Small downward adjustment appropriate — Partial indemnity basis maintained — Costs reduced and awarded
• 2026-05-05 FirstOntario Credit Union Limited. v. Carmichael et al., 2026 ONSC 2688 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Fraudulent conveyances — Fraudulent Conveyances Act, s. 2 — Whether transfer of net sale proceeds to spouse was a conveyance made with intent to defeat, hinder, delay or defraud creditors — Badges of fraud supporting inference of debtor intent — Non‑arm’s length transfer without consideration — Mortgage payments continued to conceal sale — Transfer declared void
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Fraudulent conveyances — Good consideration and good faith — Fraudulent Conveyances Act, s. 3 — Does the Separation Agreement establish good consideration and good faith for the transfer? — No separation at time of transfer — Absence of financial disclosure and bona fide equalization calculation — Defence under s. 3 inapplicable — Good consideration defence rejected
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Tracing — Assignments and Preferences Act, s. 12 — Should the proceeds transferred to the spouse be traced and recovered by the creditor? — Conveyance void under s. 2 treated as invalid against creditors — Transferee deemed trustee of proceeds for creditors — Authorities applied, including Westinghouse and Pilot Insurance — Tracing order granted
  Procedure — Interest — Courts of Justice Act, ss. 128, 129 — What interest rate applies to judgment against the transferee, the mortgage rate or statutory interest? — Mortgage terms not binding on non‑signatory transferee — Asset restoration approach followed — Applicable statutory rate under Courts of Justice Act fixed — Mortgage rate interest refused; Courts of Justice Act interest awarded
• 2026-05-04 R. v. S. S., 2026 ONSC 2608 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Adjournment — Criminal trial management — Whether the trial should be adjourned to permit defence counsel to participate in an in-custody murder trial — Judicial discretion exercised per proper principles, R. v. Millard, 2017 ONSC 4548 — Timing, length of delay and resource constraints weighed — Parallel seriousness of both proceedings recognised — Adjournment denied
  Procedure — Charter delay — Waiver — Effect of the accused’s s. 11(b) waiver on adjournment — Waiver does not remedy prejudice to complainant or public interest in timely trial — Jordan context acknowledged without s. 11(b) adjudication — Society’s right to reasonably prompt trial considered — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Fair trial — Full answer and defence — Whether denial impairs ability to cross‑examine complainant in French — No compromise to fairness where experienced counsel can proceed with interpreter — Preferred counsel’s unavailability insufficient — Possibility of brief accommodation in other matter noted — Adjournment refused
  Procedure — Vulnerable witnesses — Prejudice from delay — Balancing impact on young complainant, memory reliability, and prior accommodations — Public interest in prompt adjudication of serious sexual offences emphasised — Late application would waste scarce court time — Interests of justice require trial to proceed as scheduled — Application dismissed
• 2026-05-04 Candido v Bramview Holdings Inc., 2026 ONSC 2622 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Removal of counsel — Settlement privilege breach — Whether disclosure of a settlement amount justifies removing defence counsel — Presumption of prejudice acknowledged but tied to settlement discussions — Stage of litigation and impact of adjournment weighed — Proposed firewall undertakings assessed as adequate — Removal refused
  Procedure — Remedies — Privileged information — What is the appropriate remedy for receipt of privileged information at the eve of trial? — Celanese Canada Inc. v Murray Demolition Corp. factors applied — No prejudice to the trial proper identified — Undertakings not to mention or rely on the amount accepted — Motion dismissed
  Evidence — Settlement privilege — Application of Celanese test — Does the Celanese test apply to information protected by settlement privilege? — Sable Offshore Energy Inc. cited on protection of settlement amounts and post-trial disclosure — Test applied without modification to settlement privilege context — Motion dismissed
  Professional responsibility — Rules of Professional Conduct — Inadvertent disclosure — Lawyer’s duty to notify and delete upon recognizing potential privilege, r 7.2-10 — Whether counsel breached obligations by sharing the settlement amount — Conduct described as unacceptable and blameworthy — Curative not punitive approach adopted — Undertakings ordered

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-05-05 Atkinson v. Economical, 2026 ONSC 2605 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Tribunal reconsideration — SPPA and LAT Rules — Whether the LAT could issue a second reconsideration decision while appeal and judicial review were pending — Rule 18.5 “reasonable time” requirement applied — Functus officio and finality principles engaged — Chandler and CBC v. Manitoba considered — Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reopen — September 12, 2025 decision quashed and matter remitted
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Natural justice — Admission of expert report without cross-examination — Whether relying on a challenged expert report without permitting cross-examination breached procedural fairness — Plante v. Economical Insurance Company followed — Error of law found by LAT adjudicator — Original and first reconsideration decisions cannot stand — Decisions quashed and new hearing before different adjudicator ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Appeals and judicial review — Whether costs of the LAT appeal and judicial review should be awarded and against whom — Costs rarely awarded against tribunals and not justified on these facts — Insurer preserved position on admissibility requiring proceedings — Quantum reduced for partial success — Costs of $15,000 all inclusive awarded against insurer
  Procedure — Costs — Judicial review on consent — HRTO decisions quashed on consent — Whether Applicant entitled to costs of the HRTO application — Costs generally not awarded for or against tribunals — Respondents successful on request to avoid directions fettering HRTO — Applicant’s costs denied — Costs of $1,500 to each respondent group awarded, inclusive
• 2026-05-04 GD Construction & Project Management Inc. v. Kiya Sunrise Electrical Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2643 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Small Claims Court — Appeal from judgment issued after pleadings struck — Appellate standard of review under Housen v. Nikolaisen applied — Jurisdiction under Courts of Justice Act, ss. 21(2)(b), 31(a) — Error of law in functus officio approach — Judgment set aside and matter remitted for new trial — Appeal allowed with condition
  Procedure — Trial management — Functus officio — Whether trial judge could revisit striking of pleadings when circumstances changed mid-trial — Authority to reconsider interim rulings affirmed, citing Quadrangle v. AG Canada and Montague v. Bank of Nova Scotia — Discretion required when late party arrives — Deputy Judge erred in law — New trial ordered
  Procedure — Default judgment — Striking pleadings — Principles for setting aside order striking defence and proceeding by assessment — Late attendance and default of production order considered — Options available included adjourning, standing down, limiting defences, or permitting cross-examination and submissions — Procedural fairness required — Judgment set aside
  Procedure — Interim relief — Payment into court — Should appeal be allowed conditional on payment of impugned amount into court — Delay primarily attributable to appellants and continuing non-compliance with production order noted — Security for respondents pending retrial justified — Conditional order imposed — Appeal allowed on condition
  Procedure — Costs — Small Claims appeal — Costs for first trial and appeal — Fault of appellant’s paralegal acknowledged yet respondents’ counsel encouraged procedurally unfair decision — Amounts in issue considered — No costs ordered for first trial or appeal — No costs ordered
• 2026-05-04 Winegardner v. Ontario Labour Relations Board et al, 2026 ONSC 2580 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions reviewed under Vavilov — Did the Board act reasonably in dismissing the duty of fair representation application and reconsideration request? — Coherent reasons consistent with governing case law — Factual matrix understood — Application on judicial review dismissed
  Labour and employment — Unions — Duty of fair representation — Labour Relations Act, 1995, s. 74 — Did the union meet its duty when withdrawing the grievance? — Fair, objective and due consideration given — Limited right to be wrong from Switzer applied — Exhaustive investigation not required — Board’s acceptance reasonable — Application dismissed
  Labour and employment — Unions — Conflict of interest — Whether union representative’s alleged conflict established bad faith or discrimination — Allegation not properly pleaded before the Board — Correspondence appended but no material facts — Reconsideration an impermissible attempt to relitigate — No reasonable apprehension of bias disclosed — Bias allegation unsubstantiated — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reconsideration — New issues — Whether human rights discrimination could be raised on reconsideration — Bald assertion devoid of material facts — No exceptional circumstances to permit new issues — Record lacked facts showing disability or nexus to termination — Board’s determination reasonable — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reasons — Sufficiency of reasons — Whether Board used boilerplate language — Justification, transparency and intelligibility required under Vavilov — Reasons coherent and consistent with case law — No obligation to address every submission — Reasons sufficient in statutory and factual context — Application dismissed
• 2026-05-01 Fuentes v. Fuentes, 2026 ONSC 2441 (CanLII)
  Key Words: all-inclusive — temporary — writing — motion — leave
• 2026-05-01 Belova v. Monkhouse Law Professional Corporation, 2026 ONSC 2442 (CanLII)
  Key Words: writing — motion — leave — dismissed — costs