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

• 2025-07-09 Grealy v. XL Tool Inc., 2025 ONSC 4010 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Labour and employment — Wrongful dismissal — Inducement — Plaintiff alleged he was induced to leave long-term employment for a new position with the defendant — Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an enhanced notice period due to inducement — Factors from Firatli v. Kohler Ltd. applied — No inducement found as negotiations were part of normal hiring process
  Workplace health and safety — Termination notice — Reasonable notice period — Plaintiff employed as a machinist for less than six months full-time — Bardal factors applied to determine reasonable notice — Plaintiff awarded 12 weeks' notice based on age, short tenure, and availability of similar employment
  Torts — Punitive damages — Alleged bad faith — Plaintiff claimed defendant acted in bad faith by hiring him during a downturn in sales — Evidence showed no misrepresentation or malicious conduct by the defendant — No entitlement to punitive damages
• 2025-07-08 PAGLIALONGA v. ARIAS, 2025 ONSC 4050 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs — Successful party — Father awarded costs as the successful party at trial — Mother opposed costs or sought a reduced amount — Should the father be awarded costs, and if so, in what amount? — Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules requiring costs in favour of the successful party
  Family — Litigation conduct — Unreasonable conduct — Mother's refusal to permit parenting time and failure to engage with the OCL deemed unreasonable litigation conduct — Did the mother's conduct constitute unreasonable litigation conduct under Rule 24(14)? — Rule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules governing litigation conduct
  Family — Costs — Full recovery — Father's request for full recovery of costs denied due to lack of severable Offer to Settle — Should the father's request for full recovery of costs under Rule 24(12) be granted? — Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules requiring a severable Offer to Settle
  Civil procedure — Costs — Reasonableness and proportionality — Determination of reasonable and proportionate costs in family law proceedings — Principles of reasonableness and proportionality applied to costs — What principles govern the determination of reasonable and proportionate costs? — Rule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules; Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867
• 2025-07-08 Buffa v. Giacomelli, 2025 ONSC 4024 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Estates and trusts — Inter vivos gifts — Resulting trust — Undue influence — Doctrine of unconscionable procurement — Dispute over joint bank accounts and other wealth transfers made by the deceased to the Respondent — Whether the deceased’s intention to gift was clear and deliberate — Pecore v. Pecore principles applied — Respondent successfully rebutted presumption of resulting trust — No evidence of undue influence or diminished capacity — Gifts upheld as valid inter vivos transfers
  Property — Inter vivos gifts — Validity of gifts — Joint bank accounts — Whether the deceased intended to gift funds in joint accounts to the Respondent — Evidence of close relationship between deceased and Respondent — Estranged relationship with Applicant — Clear documentation of deceased’s intent to gift — Foley v. McIntyre test applied — Gifts found valid based on intention, acceptance, and delivery
  Evidence — Resulting trust — Rebutting presumption — Whether Respondent provided sufficient evidence to rebut presumption of resulting trust — Evidence of deceased’s clear intent to gift wealth to Respondent — Lack of evidence of undue influence or diminished capacity — Pecore v. Pecore principles applied — Respondent successfully displaced presumption of resulting trust
  Evidence — Unconscionable procurement — Doctrine of unconscionable procurement — Whether Applicant proved Respondent’s active involvement in procuring gifts — No evidence of Respondent’s undue involvement in transfers — Deceased’s actions consistent with independent decision-making — Applicant failed to establish unconscionable procurement — Gefen v. Gaertner principles applied
• 2025-07-08 Campo v. Houng, 2025 ONSC 4047 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting time — Best interests of the child — Father’s parenting time increased from 5 to 6 nights in November 2025 and to 7 nights in November 2026 — Mother’s concerns about Father’s handling of child’s allergies — Does the parenting schedule align with the child’s best interests? — Governing factors under Divorce Act, ss. 16(1), 16(2), 16(3), 16(6)
  Family — Child support — Calculation of child support — Father’s income grossed up to account for undeclared rental income and unpaid taxes — Monthly child support set at $2,148 commencing December 2024 — Should child support reflect grossed-up income? — Federal Child Support Guidelines applied
  Family — Section 7 expenses — Proportionate sharing of extraordinary expenses — Father to pay 64% and Mother 36% of section 7 expenses — Retroactive section 7 expenses fixed at $14,596 — Are the section 7 expenses reasonable and proportionate? — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 7(1), 7(2)
  Family — Spousal support — Entitlement to spousal support — Mother’s claim for spousal support dismissed — No economic disadvantage or financial hardship arising from marriage or separation — Does the Mother qualify for spousal support under compensatory or needs-based models? — Divorce Act, ss. 15.2(4), 15.2(6)
  Family — Occupation rent — Claim for occupation rent dismissed — Father excluded from matrimonial home due to restraining order — Mother provided stability for child in matrimonial home — Should the Mother pay occupation rent? — Factors from Griffiths v. Zambosco applied
  Family — Change of child’s surname — Mother permitted to add her surname to child’s surname — Combined surname reflects dual heritage and cultural belonging — Does the name change align with the child’s best interests? — Change of Name Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.7, s. 5; Hermanson v. Kiarie factors applied
• 2025-07-07 Patel v. Patel, 2025 ONSC 4016 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Relocation — Best interests of the child — Primary residence — Child’s primary residence ordered to remain with the mother in England — Father failed to demonstrate that relocation to Ontario was in the child’s best interests — Factors considered under s. 16.92 of the Divorce Act — Stability, family violence, and child’s thriving environment emphasized — Sole decision-making responsibility granted to the mother — Framework for relocation decisions under Gordon v. Goertz and Divorce Act amendments
  Family — Child support — Retroactive and ongoing child support — Father ordered to pay $11,672 in retroactive child support arrears plus pre-judgment interest — Ongoing child support set at $1,200 per month, subject to annual income adjustments — Proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses ordered — Father to pay 56% of private school tuition — Exchange of income information required annually — Divorce Act, s. 16
  Family — Spousal support — Retroactive spousal support — Father ordered to pay $16,800 in retroactive spousal support net of tax, plus pre-judgment interest — Support awarded for the period from separation to the mother’s employment in England — High end of SSAG range applied due to financial disparity and family violence — Divorce Act principles applied
  Family — Parenting schedule — Parenting time — Existing parenting schedule maintained — Father’s in-person parenting time in England and Canada upheld — Virtual parenting time facilitated daily — “Touchpoints” between mother and child during father’s parenting time limited to one per week — Parenting schedule subject to consent-based modifications — Divorce Act, s. 16
  Family — Decision-making responsibility — Sole decision-making responsibility — Mother granted sole decision-making responsibility for major decisions concerning the child — Day-to-day decisions allocated to the parent with care at the time — History of family violence and primary caregiving role considered — Joint decision-making deemed inappropriate due to conflict and lack of trust — Divorce Act, s. 16

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-07-07 Neil v. Gayle, 2025 ONSC 4030 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Extension of time — Motion for leave to appeal — Costs order — Moving party filed motion for leave to appeal costs order outside the prescribed 15-day period under r. 61.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Should the court grant an extension of time? — Justice of the case test applied — Motion dismissed due to lack of merit in the proposed appeal
  Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Time limits for filing motions for leave to appeal — Rule 61.03 requires service of notice of motion within 15 days and filing within five days after service — Moving party misunderstood applicable timelines — Does the justice of the case require an extension of time? — Test from Enbridge Gas Distribution v. Froese applied
  Evidence — Merit of proposed appeal — Costs orders — Leave to appeal costs orders granted sparingly — Moving party failed to identify any palpable and overriding error or error of law in the costs order — Does the proposed appeal have sufficient merit to justify an extension of time? — Lack of merit determinative in denying extension
• 2025-07-07 Beaudoin v. City of Ottawa, 2025 ONSC 3870 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Addition of parties — Applicant sought to add five co-applicants and allow future applicants without leave — Whether addition of parties promotes judicial efficiency or complicates proceedings — Court retains discretion under Rule 5.04(2) to refuse addition of parties even if Rule 26.01 tests are met — Addition of co-applicants dismissed as prejudicial and unnecessary — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 5.02(1), 5.04(2), 26.01
  Civil procedure — Interlocutory motions — Amendments to pleadings — Applicant sought to add co-applicants and compel earlier response from Respondent — Court dismissed motion to add co-applicants but ordered Respondent to respond before the second case conference — Discretionary power of court to manage proceedings efficiently — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 5.02(1), 5.04(2), 26.01
  Constitution — Standing — Private and public interest standing — Proposed co-applicants lacked direct legal interest or exceptional prejudice to justify standing — Public interest standing not granted where directly affected party already challenges administrative decision — Judicial review not a class-action proceeding — Canadian Council of Churches v. R., [1992] 1 S.C.R. 236 — Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society v. Canada (Attorney General), 2012 SCC 45
• 2025-07-02 Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency), 2025 ONSC 3504 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Police conduct complaints — Screening decisions — Consolidation of complaints — Complaints Director screened out May 2024 Complaint and consolidated it with ongoing section 71 review process — Was the decision to screen out the complaint unreasonable? — Complaints Director’s discretion under Police Services Act and Community Safety and Policing Act — Decision upheld as reasonable and justified under statutory framework
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Consolidation of complaints — Complaints Director directed May 2024 Complaint to be addressed in section 71 review process — Applicant alleged procedural unfairness in screening process — Did the consolidation violate procedural fairness? — Low threshold for procedural fairness at screening stage — No breach of fairness found
  Administrative law — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Complaints Director’s impartiality — Applicant alleged bias due to involvement of LECA Manager of Investigation and statements in Screening Decision — Strong presumption of impartiality — No reasonable apprehension of bias established
  Statutory interpretation — Police Services Act — Community Safety and Policing Act — Complaints Director’s discretion to screen out complaints — Public interest considerations under section 60(4) of the Police Services Act — Interpretation of statutory framework governing police conduct complaints — Decision to screen out complaint found consistent with statutory authority
  Civil procedure — Record of Proceeding — Judicial review — Applicant sought to add internal LECA documents to Record of Proceeding — Motion judge refused to include documents related to a separate complaint — Did the motion judge err in excluding documents? — Keeprite exceptions for supplementing record not met — Motion dismissed
• 2025-07-02 Sistermans v. CAA Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 3809 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Tribunal decisions — Appeal and judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions regarding capacity to settle accident benefits claim — Whether Tribunal erred in law or acted unreasonably in its findings — Whether procedural fairness was denied — Standard of review for questions of law, fact, and procedural fairness — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov framework applied
  Evidence — Capacity to contract — Presumption of capacity — Rebuttable presumption under Substitute Decisions Act — Tribunal's reliance on academic records, cognitive testing, and psychological evidence — Whether Tribunal failed to consider psychological impairments and ability to appreciate consequences of settlement — Legal standard for capacity to instruct counsel and settle claims — Koch (Re) and Carmichael v. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. applied
  Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Settlement agreements — Capacity to settle — Tribunal's finding that applicant did not rebut presumption of capacity — Whether Tribunal's decision was unreasonable or lacked justification — Retrospective capacity assessments and their evidentiary weight — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, O. Reg. 34/10, s. 280 of the Insurance Act
  Civil procedure — Procedural fairness — Exclusion of expert evidence — Tribunal's refusal to admit expert report on capacity due to retrospective nature — Denial of production order for unredacted claims notes — Whether procedural rulings denied applicant a fair hearing — Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) factors applied
• 2025-07-02 Akman v. Sonnet Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 3924 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs on appeal — Small Claims Court — Appeal allowed — Whether costs order at first instance survives appeal — General principle that costs orders below are set aside when an appeal is allowed — Costs awarded to successful appellant — St. Jean v. Cheung applied — Hunt v. TD Securities Inc. applied
  Insurance — Duty to defend — Landlord and Tenant Board hearing — Appeal of Small Claims Court decision — Whether insurer required to pay costs awarded at first instance after appeal success — Costs order set aside upon appeal success — General principles governing costs prevail over regulatory limits
  Statutory interpretation — Small Claims Court — Costs awards below $3,500 — O. Reg. 626/00, s. 2 — Whether regulatory limit prohibits appeal of costs award — Regulatory provision does not override general principles governing costs on appeal — Riddell v. Carefree Moving Inc. considered