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

• 2026-02-13 Med Group Ontario Inc. v. Owemanco Mortgage Holding Corp., 2026 ONSC 703 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Interpretation of loan commitment — Automatic renewal and fees — Was the unilateral automatic renewal under s. 5 effective and were renewal fees properly charged? — Operation of implied terms for communication, curing default and timing before June 1 — Interest Act, s. 8(1) engaged where renewal is a thinly disguised penalty — Renewal decision on June 3 ineffective — Fees and interest improperly collected — Amounts to be returned
  Statutory interpretation — Mortgages Act — Payment in lieu of notice — Is the mortgagee entitled to three months’ interest under s. 17 in these circumstances? — Payment made in response to enforcement proceedings including s. 244 BIA notice and receivership application — No free standing claim surviving discharge — First National distinguished — Claim to three months’ interest rejected
  Procedure — Costs — Costs of receivership application and refund application — Who should bear costs of the two applications and at what scale? — Respondent entitled to costs of receivership application and abandoned injunction — Applicants substantially successful on refund application and entitled to their costs — Scale and quantum to be determined on written submissions — Mixed entitlement ordered
• 2026-02-12 Gohir v. Nawaz et al., 2026 ONSC 894 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Loans — Quantification of advances — How much money was advanced by the Plaintiff to each Defendant? — Foreign currency transfers addressed under Courts of Justice Act, s. 121 — Bank of Canada rates unavailable, investing.com rates used as best evidence available — Amounts detailed in Schedule A — Monetary judgment for $57,934.58 against Ahmed and $204,641.92 against Muhammad
  Contracts — Counterclaim — Proof of loan — Did the Defendant prove cash loans totalling $325,000 to the Plaintiff? — No documentary evidence produced despite claimed records — Only admission was a $150,000 payment from Defendant to Plaintiff — Onus not met on counterclaim — Counterclaim dismissed
  Contracts — Loans — Characterisation and parties liable — Are the advances loans and are the Defendants jointly liable? — Parties never alleged gifts, communications showed expectation of repayment — Advances made to either Defendant, no guarantee of the other’s debt — Separate liabilities determined, joint debt theory rejected — Separate monetary judgments, joint liability denied
  Trusts — Resulting and constructive trusts — Proprietary interest in land — Do the advances create a proprietary interest in Blue Jays Way or Monarch Drive? — Unjust enrichment not established, juristic reason being a loan, Kerr v. Baranow — Resulting trust intent not proven, Pecore v. Pecore, monetary remedy considered per Martin v. Sansome — Proprietary claims dismissed, vesting order refused
• 2026-02-12 Benabed v Levasseur, 2026 ONSC 867 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Pleadings — Striking defences — Whether to strike defences for persistent breach of court orders — Failure to serve affidavit of documents and pay court-ordered costs — Defaults deliberate, clear and continuing, with no reasonable explanation — Plaintiff unable to move action forward — Court cannot do justice absent striking — Defences of several defendants struck
  Procedure — Proportionality — Falcon Lumber factors — How proportionality informs striking pleadings for non-compliance — Factors of deliberate failure, material impact, continued default and lack of credible commitment applied — False assertion of a costs award treated as aggravating — Falcon Lumber Limited v 2480375 Ontario Inc, 2020 ONCA 310 considered — Proportionate remedy required — Defences struck
  Procedure — Case management — Extensions — Whether further indulgence, case conference under rule 77.14 or settlement conference should be ordered — Prior extensions ineffective, timetable agreed then ignored — No credible plan to cure defaults quickly — Accommodation cannot be at expense of fairness, Rana v Unifund Assurance Company cited — Alternative measures rejected — Defences struck
  Procedure — Costs — Motion costs — Whether partial indemnity costs should be awarded without a costs outline — Costs claimed in notice of motion, amount more than reasonable — Defendants made no submissions on quantum — Plaintiff prepared complete record of breaches and helpful factum — Partial indemnity costs fixed and payable forthwith — Costs awarded
• 2026-02-12 In the matter of the Bankruptcy of William Walid Heidary, 2026 ONSC 876 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Bankruptcy and insolvency — Discharge — General — Application for discharge by Bankrupt — Whether discharge should be granted — Failures to co‑operate with Trustee and comply with BIA duties — Integrity of insolvency system engaged — Facts proven under s. 173(1)(a),(c),(d),(e),(j),(k),(m),(o) — Bankrupt not “honest but unfortunate” — Discharge refused
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Discharge — Statutory grounds — Whether misconduct under s. 173(1) bars discharge — Pattern of non‑compliance with Production Order and duties under s. 170 — Trustee’s s. 205 Report detailing discrepancies — Public confidence in BIA administration considered — Bank of Montreal v. Giannotti applied — Discharge refused
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Surplus income — Calculation — Whether the Bankrupt met surplus income obligations — Adequacy of disclosure to permit Trustee’s verification — Incomplete records of income, taxes and non‑discretionary expenses — Inability to reconcile bank, credit and business records — Further disclosure required before accurate determination — Determination deferred
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Post‑bankruptcy conduct — Non‑disclosure and prohibited activity — Undischarged bankrupt remaining director contrary to OBCA, s. 118(1) — Obtaining or using credit without disclosure — Gambling after bankruptcy and unexplained expenditures — Effect on entitlement to discharge — Conduct supports s. 173(1)(k),(m),(o) findings — Discharge refused
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Remedies on discharge — Conditional discharge — Whether conditional discharge appropriate after lengthy bankruptcy — Honest but unfortunate debtor standard not met — Public confidence and integrity of the insolvency system — Bank of Montreal v. Giannotti considered — Re‑application permitted after one year with full co‑operation — Discharge refused
• 2026-02-12 Ghorbani v. Ehsani, 2026 ONSC 878 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Divorce and spousal support — Res judicata and issue estoppel — Whether Ontario claims are barred by prior Canadian divorce and Iranian rulings on Mahr and spousal support — Iranian courts acknowledged pending and final Canadian divorce — Same parties, final decisions, issues decided — Forum shopping and jurisdictional hopping found abusive — Applicant’s Ontario divorce, Mahr and spousal support claims dismissed
  Limitation periods — Family Law Act — Equalization — Is the equalization claim statute barred under s. 7(3) and should time be extended under s. 2(8)? — Divorce date triggered two‑year deadline — No motion for extension and no evidence meeting conjunctive preconditions — Mahr and financial issues resolved in Iran — Equalization claim time‑barred and res judicata — Claim dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment and abandonment — Whether the Application should be dismissed on summary judgment and for abandonment — No attendance at conferences and motion, no responding evidence — Rule 16 requires specific facts showing genuine issue for trial — Rules of Civil Procedure s. 38.08(2) deemed abandonment applied — Pleadings not struck as claims dismissed — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Costs in family proceedings — What costs order is appropriate under the Family Law Rules given unreasonable litigation behaviour? — Presumption of costs to successful party under subrule 24(3) — Reasonableness factors under subrules 24(8) and 24(14) considered — Forum shopping and jurisdictional hopping unreasonable — Mattina v. Mattina and Beaver v. Hill cited — Costs awarded to Respondent at fixed amount

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-02-12 Dean v. McDonald, 2026 ONSC 893 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease and tenancy — Entry to rental unit — Notice of entry — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 27 — Whether a three-hour window between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. satisfied statutory notice — Application of Wrona v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation considered — Interpretation Guideline 19 addressed — Board’s application of facts to law upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Lease and tenancy — Use of premises — Exclusive use of backyard — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 202 — Did the tenancy grant tenants exclusive access to the yard — Real substance of transactions and activities examined — Yard used to access basement storage for landlord’s personal use — Board’s factual findings open to it — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Statutory appeal jurisdiction — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210 — Is the court limited to questions of law where issues are mixed fact and law — No extricable error of law identified — High-volume tribunal entitled to apply facts to law, RTA s. 183 — Court declines to intervene — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Should substantial indemnity costs be awarded for abuse of process — Appeal largely based on application of facts to law and not a good use of resources — No bad faith found — Elevated costs declined — Costs awarded
• 2026-02-11 Bhanji v. Enercare Home and Commercial Services Inc., 2026 ONSC 202 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Extension of time to reactivate Human Rights Tribunal application — Was the Tribunal’s refusal to extend time unreasonable — Length of delay, causes of delay, prejudice to employer assessed — Reference to Pereira v. Hamilton Police Services Board — Deference to fact finding and weighing under Vavilov, para. 125 — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Tribunal procedure — Reactivation under HRTO Rules — Rule 14.4 requirements to state conclusion date of other proceeding and include decision — Did applicant’s letters amount to a valid reactivation request — Liberal interpretation argument rejected — Failure to advise grievance withdrawal or copy other parties — Time extension denied — Application dismissed
  Professional responsibility — Duty of candour — Counsel before tribunals — Was respondent’s counsel obliged to advise Tribunal that grievances were withdrawn — Tribunal found no legal basis for asserted duty of candour on these facts — Court expressed difficulty but upheld reasonableness of conclusion — No unreasonableness established — Application dismissed
• 2026-02-11 Galace v. Winners Merchants International L.P., 2026 ONSC 826 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Tribunal case management directions, mootness ruling — Whether adjudicator could disregard or implicitly overturn the 2024 CAD without notice — Parties not notified or given opportunity to make submissions — Final Decision based on alleged non‑compliance rather than merits — Procedural fairness not provided — Application granted and decisions quashed
  Administrative law — Judicial review remedies — Quashing and remittal — Should all CADs, endorsements and HRTO orders after the 2024 CAD be quashed — HRTO proceeding after the 2024 CAD rendered unfair — Processing to resume before a different adjudicator — Any change to the 2024 CAD to be on notice with submissions — Application granted and matter remitted
• 2026-02-11 Benbella v. Law Society of Ontario, 2026 ONSC 842 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Record of proceedings — Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 10 — Is the responding party required to file a record where closing a complaint may not be a statutory power of decision under s. 1? — Affidavit describes screening and confirms only complaint package and Rules — Assuming without deciding, compliance established — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Mootness — Motion in writing — Is the motion moot where the motion record contains everything the moving party sought? — Court finds the responding party’s record includes the requested materials — No live controversy requiring adjudication — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Should costs be awarded to the successful responding party? — Material could have been provided far sooner and privilege arguments were unnecessary — In all the circumstances, no order as to costs — No order as to costs
• 2026-02-10 Freedman v. FRO (for the Benefit of Rashell Freedman), 2026 ONSC 787 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Appeals — Fresh evidence — Courts of Justice Act, s. 134(4)(b) — Palmer v. The Queen applied — Should the appellate court admit the proposed fresh evidence? — Relevance to decisive issues assessed — Credibility and due diligence deficiencies identified — No reasonable prospect of affecting result — Motion to introduce fresh evidence dismissed
  Family — Support enforcement — Warrant of committal — FRSAEA, s. 41(10)(h)(i), s. 41(15) — Did the support payor comply or show a material change since the default order? — Summary proceeding confined to post‑default circumstances — Two‑part test correctly applied — Non‑compliance and no material change found — Appeal dismissed, warrant of committal reissued
  Family — Support enforcement — Priority of obligations — Creditors’ Relief Act, s. 2(3) — Did the motion judge prioritise equalisation over support? — Reference to beneficial ownership confined to equalisation analysis — No competing creditors or priority determination — Argument irrelevant to committal test — Appeal dismissed
  Family — Support enforcement — Discretionary measures — FRO enforcement — Was the motion judge required to assess reasonableness and proportionality of FRO’s enforcement? — Warrant of committal hearing not a judicial review — FRSAEA, s. 6 discretion recognised — Recalcitrance justifying last‑resort incarceration — Appeal dismissed