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

• 2026-06-26 Aidan Ki, A Minor By His Litigation Guardian Vincent Ki v. Whitby Swimming et al, 2026 CanLII 63654 (ON SC)
  Key Words: Procedure — Settlement approval of minor — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 7.08 — Whether the court should approve a minor’s settlement on deficient record — Absence of executed Minutes of Settlement and articulated heads of damages — Positions on liability and future loss not provided — Best Practices Guidelines referenced — Motion dismissed
  Professional responsibility — Contingency fee agreements — Solicitors Act, s. 28, O. Reg. 563/20 — Are the contingency fee agreement and fees fair and reasonable for a person under disability? — Access to justice balanced against fairness and reasonableness — Hendricks-Hunter, Raphel Partners, St. Jean, Treleaven applied — Insufficient evidence of time, risk and results — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Subrogated claims — OHIP recovery — Sufficiency of evidence to resolve OHIP’s subrogated claim and obtain a release — Need for proof of amount and confirmation of Ministry of Long-Term Health release — Allocation within settlement scrutinised — Approval contingent on proper evidentiary foundation — Motion dismissed
  Evidence — Affidavits — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 39.01(3) — Do the affidavits comply with personal knowledge and admissibility requirements on a r. 7.08 motion? — Cut and paste medical excerpts without analysis criticised — Highlighting unexplained and non-compliant format — Defence expert report not addressed — Materials inadequate — Motion dismissed
• 2026-06-26 Bedrian v. S.V.S. Auto Parts Ltd. et al., 2026 ONSC 3751 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act — Unsuccessful motion to remove counsel — Whether the Respondents are entitled to costs — Principles of fairness, reasonableness and proportionality applied — Purpose of modern costs rules considered — Respondents wholly successful on the motion — Costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Scale — Substantial indemnity — Whether conduct warrants substantial or full indemnity — Threshold of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct per Net Connect Installation Inc. v. Mobile Zone Inc. — Motion without merit not sufficient per Young v. Young — Elevated scale not justified — Substantial indemnity costs refused
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Rule 57.01(1) and (3), Tariff A — Fixing a fair, reasonable and proportionate amount — Complexity, importance, experience and hours assessed — Boucher v. Public Accountants Council principle applied — Amount an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay considered — Costs fixed at $6,000
  Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle and conduct — Written offer to resolve costs considered — Impact of inappropriate and abusive correspondence on costs — Whether offer and conduct warrant elevated costs — Rule 1.04(1.1) proportionality engaged — Conduct noted but did not justify higher scale — Costs fixed on a partial indemnity basis
• 2026-06-25 R. v. Canlas, 2026 ONSC 3583 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fines under Criminal Code — Extension to pay — Whether to grant further time to pay under s. 734.1 — Past proceeds of fraud and ability to pay considered with Topp and Benlolo — Failure to present credible plan or explanation — Prior time-to-pay already generous under Mahmood — Application dismissed
  Criminal and statutory offences — Enforcement of fines — Default and civil recovery — Whether offender is in default, permitting judgment under s. 734.6 — Evidence of income, assets and minimal payments assessed — No reasonable excuse shown under Wu — Equity in home and redeemable policies identified — Default declared and civil enforcement authorised
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing principles — Ability to pay inference — Whether inference from past receipt of funds applies absent credible explanation — Length of time and large amount analysed with Topp — No credible account of $1,666,476 — Purpose of fine to prevent retention of proceeds affirmed with Benlolo — Inference applied and extension refused
  Bankruptcy and insolvency — Discharge — Effect on criminal fines — Does an absolute discharge release liability for a fine imposed for an offence under s. 178(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act — Fine, penalty or similar order unaffected by discharge — Ongoing obligation to pay confirmed — Enforcement may proceed — Obligation survives discharge
• 2026-06-25 Hall v. Herrington, 2026 ONSC 3724 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support — Income imputation — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19 — Whether the Respondent is intentionally unemployed or underemployed — Failure to make full and timely financial disclosure and adverse inference — Capacity to earn as master electrician assessed — Financial statement sworn during trial accepted — Income imputed at $77,000
  Family — Child support — Special or extraordinary expenses — Proportional sharing under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines — How should s. 7 expenses be shared between the parties? — Imputed incomes used for apportionment — Applicant Mother at $33,000, Respondent Father at $77,000 — Sharing fixed at 30 percent and 70 percent respectively — Proportionate sharing ordered at 70 percent Respondent Father, 30 percent Applicant Mother
  Family — Child support — Arrears — Should extra payments be credited against arrears? — Characterisation of e‑transfer payments made over and above table support — Evidence of additional payments accepted as for the benefit of the children — Arrears from missed months offset by extra payments — Claim for child support arrears dismissed
  Family — Child support — Security for support — Child Support Guidelines, s. 12, Family Law Act, s. 34(k) — Should the Respondent obtain life insurance to secure support? — Cautious approach absent evidence of insurability and cost per Court of Appeal — Conditional requirement with proof of denial or prohibitive cost — Security for support ordered conditionally
• 2026-06-25 Royal Bank of Canada v. Trans Emerge Transport Inc., 2026 ONSC 3725 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Security interests — Receivership — RSLA liens — Competing claims over trucks — Whether respondent held valid RSLA liens at appointment and surrender of possession — Receiver’s Third Report approved — Court‑ordered turnover and auction context — Lien claims found unproven and documentation unreliable — All RSLA liens over debtor’s property declared invalid and unenforceable — Motions granted
  Security interests — Repairer’s lien — RSLA, s. 1(1), s. 3(1) — Was the respondent a “repairer” with an understanding of payment? — Absence of admissible evidence of authorisation and fair value — Invoices and work orders not authentic or reliable business records — Onus on lien claimant not met — Repairer status denied — Repair liens unavailable — Declaration of no repairer’s lien
  Security interests — Storer’s lien — RSLA, s. 1(1) — Was the respondent a “storer” with an understanding of payment? — No evidence of any agreement for storage or delivery of invoices — Storage while defying receivership order not compensable — Boilerplate charges insufficient — Storer status not established — Storage liens rejected — Declaration of no storer’s lien
  Security interests — Possessory lien — Continuous possession — Did the respondent maintain continuous possession of units? — Admission that units moved in and out of yard — No records of comings and goings — Possessory lien, once lost, cannot be re‑asserted — Continuous possession not proven — Any possessory lien extinguished — Possessory lien lost
  Security interests — Non‑possessory lien — RSLA, s. 7(5) — Was a signed acknowledgement of indebtedness obtained? — Work orders unsigned by authorised persons and not acknowledgements of debt — No reliable proof of indebtedness — Statutory preconditions for non‑possessory lien not satisfied — Non‑possessory lien requirements unmet — Non‑possessory lien unenforceable

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-26 Clegg v. Condominium Authority Tribunal, 2026 ONSC 3742 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Tribunal jurisdiction over records and PICs — Whether CAT could dismiss dispute about accuracy and content of a Periodic Information Certificate — Scope of s. 55 of the Condominium Act, 1998 and O. Reg. 48/01, s. 11.1 — Rule 19.1 dismissal upheld as reasonable — Governance issues outside CAT role — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Screening and dismissal powers — Was it reasonable to dismiss on own motion as trivial with no reasonable prospect of success — s. 1.41(1) of the Condominium Act, 1998 and Rule 19.1 applied — No dispute to adjudicate and lack of standing found — Use of CAT for improper purpose cautioned — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Administrative law — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Presumptive standard under Vavilov applied to CAT decisions — No basis to interfere with conclusions reached by the CAT — Tribunal’s discretionary dismissal decisions assessed for justification and intelligibility — Reasonableness standard confirmed and applied — Application for judicial review dismissed
• 2026-06-25 Yen v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2026 ONSC 3736 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Presumptive standard under Vavilov, applied to LECA screen‑out — Was the Complaints Director’s decision to decline investigation reasonable? — Decision addressed public interest and summarized the complaint — Context of neighbour dispute and police discretion considered — No procedural fairness error identified — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Statutory powers — Screening decisions — Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019, ss. 153, 158(1)(d), and LECA Rules r. 10, r. 10.10 — Did the Director state and apply the correct legal tests? — Non‑exhaustive public‑interest factors considered — Reference to Criminal Code allegation noted — Conclusion obviously reasonable on the record — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Police oversight — Discretion — Was the Superintendent’s referral to LECA, rather than investigating obstruction of justice, reasonable? — Police not required to investigate all alleged offences — Limited resources and minor, tenuous allegations weighed — Referral within decision‑making authority and appropriate — Complaint against Superintendent not in public interest to investigate — Application dismissed
• 2026-06-25 Corporation of the Township of Emo v. Borderland Pride, 2026 ONSC 3515 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Prematurity and exhaustion — Should the Court decline judicial review where no HRTO reconsideration was sought? — Adequacy of alternative remedy assessed under Yatar and Strickland — Internal review processes and reconsideration expected absent exceptional circumstances — Assumption reconsideration is pointless rejected — Application not dismissed as premature — Stay with terms imposed
  Administrative law — Discretion — Stay with terms — Whether to impose a stay permitting reconsideration given delay, consent, expertise and garnishment issues — Delay at HRTO considered along with late raising of reconsideration — Tribunal expertise and parties’ consent analysed — Adequate and effective alternative recourse identified — Process minimising costs and delay ordered — Stay with terms permitting reconsideration
  Procedure — Costs — Costs thrown away — What costs directions are appropriate if the application is not reinstated? — Parties’ agreement on quantum for merits noted — Fixed costs thrown away to one respondent ordered if not reinstated — No costs thrown away to another respondent — Opportunity to agree anew on quantum if reinstated — Costs directions issued
• 2026-06-25 The Morgan Investments Group Inc. et al. v. Adi Development Group Inc. et al., 2026 ONSC 3697 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Stay pending appeal — Should costs of the stay motion be in the cause or fixed now under Rule 57.03(1)(a)? — Hanemaayer distinguished on leave motions — No basis to depart from the general rule to fix and pay within 30 days — Failure to establish any stay element — Costs in the cause refused — Costs fixed immediately
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Are substantial indemnity costs warranted for alleged bad faith and rejection of an offer? — Threshold of reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct not met — Net Connect and More applied — Davies distinction between hard fought misguided litigation and sanctionable conduct — Substantial indemnity denied — Partial indemnity awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum assessment — What partial indemnity amount is fair, reasonable, and proportionate under s. 131 Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01? — Apotex principles applied — Expedited response considered — Comparative partial indemnity figures reviewed — Complexity minimal but issue important — Amount fixed and payable within 30 days — Partial indemnity fixed at $26,950.90
  Procedure — Costs — Apportionment — Should costs be apportioned between the secured lenders and the applicant who supported the relief? — Minimal involvement claim rejected — Participation and specific arguments advanced — No apportionment warranted on this record — Single award against all moving parties — Costs not apportioned
• 2026-06-24 Live Better Properties Inc. v. Essa Properties Developments Ltd., 2026 ONSC 3707 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Appeals — Mootness — Payment of funds into solicitor’s trust account — Whether payment rendered the only arguable issue on appeal moot — Plaintiff’s appeal and no prospect of reducing amount owing considered — Judgment not effectively stayed on these facts — Appeal dismissed as moot
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Whether substantial indemnity costs on appeal should be awarded — Respondents’ late payment after case stood down and conceded debt — Joint and several costs order against respondents — Application judge’s discretion on costs below noted — Substantial indemnity costs awarded
  Trusts — Personal liability — Potential trust liability of individual respondents — Failure to maintain a proper trust account — Whether order should be framed on a joint and several basis due to trust deficiencies — Application judge did not address trust issue — Payment mooted the trust question — Trust liability issue rendered moot