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

• 2026-07-17 Cawley v. Brown, 2026 ONSC 4165 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Dispute resolution — Family arbitration clauses in Final Order — Whether post‑order disputes must be arbitrated or litigated — Motion to stay pending arbitration opposed — Court declines to appoint substitute arbitrator and directs court process — Limited arbitration process proved unworkable in this high‑conflict case — Arbitration Act, 1991 referenced — Father’s motion dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Arbitration Act, 1991 — Named arbitrator unavailable — Are arbitration clauses inoperative when the named arbitrator declines to act? — Court’s jurisdiction to appoint substitute under s. 16(3) preserved despite s. 16(5) — Brown v. Wise and Kaplan v. Kaplan applied — Arbitration agreement operative and capable of performance — Court may appoint substitute arbitrator
  Procedure — Stays — Motion to change — Should the Mother’s Motion to Change be stayed pending arbitration? — Inefficiency and concurrent processes considered — Scope of arbitration clauses did not cover all issues raised — High‑conflict context weighs against private arbitration — Stay refused
  Procedure — Arbitration — Appointment of arbitrator — Should the Court appoint a substitute arbitrator under s. 16(3)? — Named arbitrator declined, replacement retired without award, proposed arbitrator disinclined — No agreed process or willing candidate, cost and delay concerns — Parenting and support issues not all arbitrable — Appointment refused
  Procedure — Costs — Costs of motion — Mother sought fixed costs for legal assistance — Whether costs should be awarded given mutual responsibility for defective arbitration process — Parties wasted resources on failed arbitration and related motion — No costs ordered
• 2026-07-17 R v. Khogyani, 2026 ONSC 4178 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Range — Appropriate sentencing range for procuring and material benefit offences — Authorities reviewed, including R. v. Ramocan and R. v. Williams — Role of parity and proportionality under ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2 — Nordic Model context noted in R. v. N.S. — Range set at one to three years — Range affirmed
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating factors — Whether aggravating features justify departure above the one to three year range — Two‑year duration, age disparity, work during pregnancy assessed together — Degree of coercion and vulnerability considered per R. v. Lopez — Departure not mandated — No escalation beyond established range — No departure from range
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Credit for pre‑sentence custody — Application of Summers credit and Downes credit despite bail breaches — Lockdown and triple bunking treated as mitigation — House arrest bail credited on a 4 to 1 basis — Overall credit fixed at 557 days — Credits applied
  Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Mitigating factors and restraint — Whether further incarceration necessary given remorse, guilty plea, pro‑social conduct, family hardship — Principle of restraint under s. 718.2 applied — Passage of time reduced specific deterrence, R. v. Nur cited on deterrence doubts — No further custody required — One day sentence imposed with credit — No further incarceration ordered
• 2026-07-17 HMTK v. McColl, 2026 ONSC 4168 (CanLII)
  Key Words:
• 2026-07-17 Viele v. Linton, 2026 ONSC 4175 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Scale of costs — Whether costs should be on substantial indemnity or partial indemnity — Abuse of process and mischief in naming opposing counsel assessed — Allegations of fraud not established — Tactical mischief not scandalous, egregious or outrageous — Discretion of the court applied — Partial indemnity adequate, appropriate and proportional — Partial indemnity awarded
  Procedure — Offers to settle — Rule 49.10 — Whether defendants’ offer engaged rule 49.10 costs consequences — Offer viewed as invitation to accept defendants’ argument — Rule 49.10 award not mandatory — Circumstances did not warrant substantial indemnity — Costs consequences under rule 49.10 declined — Rule 49 consequences declined
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum assessment — Whether hours expended and rates claimed were reasonable on partial indemnity — Hundreds of pages, cross‑examinations and dense rule 21 jurisprudence — Mountain of documents and supplementary materials addressed — Little or no duplication of effort — Principle of indemnity favours compensation for reasonably incurred costs — Costs fixed payable forthwith
  Procedure — Motions — Rule 21.02 promptness — Whether defendants moved promptly under rule 21.02 and impact on costs — Motion brought prior to discoveries — Difficulty obtaining long motions dates recognised — Converted application to action with necessary appearances — Defendants proceeded within the general spirit of rule 21.02 — Promptness recognised, partial indemnity maintained
• 2026-07-17 Bouchard v. 2748204 Ontario Inc. O/A Flex Home Loans et al., 2026 ONSC 4183 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 21.01(1)(a) and applications — Does Rule 21.01(1)(a) apply to a proceeding commenced by Notice of Application? — McLeod v. Castlepoint Development Corporation considered — Distinction between actions and applications affirmed — Rule 14.09 inapplicable to determination of questions of law under 21.01(1)(a) — Motion under 21.01(1)(a) improperly brought — Motion dismissed
  Limitation periods — Motions — Determination under Rule 21.01(1)(a) — If Rule 21.01(1)(a) applies, can the applicable limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002 be determined on the motion? — Limitation issue mixed fact and law — Discoverability and characterisation of claim unresolved on record — Determination not suitable on Rule 21 motion — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure — Rule 21.01(1)(b) and applications — Does Rule 21.01(1)(b) apply to proceedings by Notice of Application? — Joint operation of Rules 21.01(1)(b) and 14.09 — Tanudjaja v. Canada applied — Originating process that is not a pleading may be struck in same manner — Motion properly brought — Applicability confirmed
  Procedure — Pleadings — Motion to strike for no reasonable cause — If Rule 21.01(1)(b) applies, does the Notice of Application disclose any cause of action against the moving parties? — No evidence admissible under Rule 21.01(2)(b) — Allegations of civil fraud against corporate respondent and principal accepted as true — Cause of action disclosed — Motion to strike dismissed

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-07-17 Alamos Gold Inc. v. Sterling O&G International Corporation, 2026 ONSC 4054 (CanLII)
  Key Words: unreported — writing — motion — leave — dismissed
• 2026-07-17 Gabriel v. Einbau Ltd, 2026 ONSC 4055 (CanLII)
  Key Words: unreported — writing — motion — leave — dismissed
• 2026-07-16 2417563 Ontario Inc. v. The Corporation of the City of Brampton, 2026 ONSC 3529 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Discretion to hear — Whether to decline judicial review given availability of s. 273 Municipal Act remedy and limited public character of municipal land sale — Sale of surplus strip a routine contractual transaction — Applicant delay and balance of convenience considered — Strickland, Yatar, Highwood, Air Canada applied — Judicial review declined, application dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Jurisdiction — Divisional Court — Whether the Divisional Court can grant relief under Municipal Act, s. 273 within a judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act — Distinction between review for illegality in Superior Court and JRPA jurisdiction — s. 272 limits unreasonableness review — No jurisdiction to grant s. 273 relief
  Procedure — Mootness — Registered land transfer — Is the application moot after closing and registration of the transfer to a bona fide purchaser for value? — Land Titles Act indefeasibility considered — Durrani v. Augier discussed — No authority to unwind registered sale absent fraud — Mootness engaged, no definitive ruling required
  Procedure — Certificate of pending litigation — Leave to register — Did the motion judge err in refusing leave to obtain a CPL? — Review not a hearing de novo, error of law or palpable and overriding error required — No triable interest in land, only opportunity to negotiate — Guillaume standard applied — Motion dismissed
• 2026-07-16 McDonald v. Wainfleet Township, 2026 ONSC 4101 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Standard of review under Vavilov — Were the Township’s compliance orders reasonable on the record? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, ss. 2(1), 6(1) — Functional application of by-laws to undisputed facts — Orders consistent with definitions and height limits — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Municipalities — By-laws — Fence By-law No. 012-2020 — Does the bamboo hedge constitute a “fence” under s. 2.2 and s. 2.3? — Growth rendering continuous visual barrier — Height limits in front and rear yards applied — Trellis panels functionally extending fence height — Bamboo Hedge Order and Front Fence Order upheld
  Municipalities — By-laws — Clean Yards By-law No. 016-2021 — Do bricks and garden stones qualify as “building materials” under ss. 3.1, 3.2, 5.3, 5.4? — Nature of materials, not intended use, governs — Proximity to lot line and screening requirements engaged — Building Materials Order upheld
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Bias — Was a one-day late hearing request and officer involvement procedurally unfair? — Discretion to decline remedy where cured by court hearing, Dr. Rajiv Maini v. HPARB, para. 30 — Reasonable apprehension of bias not established — No unfairness warranting intervention — Application for judicial review dismissed
• 2026-07-15 Teetzel v. Municipality of Chatham-Kent, 2026 ONSC 4053 (CanLII)
  Key Words: summarily — quashed — recourse — motion — impugned