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

• 2026-04-15 Loveless et al v. Club Medd Bowl, 2026 ONSC 2232 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Amendments — Rule 26.01 leave to amend — Should the plaintiffs be granted leave to limit the claim to $200,000? — Non-compensable prejudice must be shown by the defendant, Shwaluk v. HSBC Bank of Canada cited — Mandatory costs under Rule 76.13(1) alleviate financial consequences — Changing damages landscape and proportionality considered — Leave to amend granted
  Procedure — Simplified procedure — Rule 76.02(7) continuation — Must the action continue under Rule 76 if the pleading is amended to comply with Rule 76.02(1)? — Policy to reduce cost and ensure proportionate litigation noted — One liability expert, action not set down for trial — Compliance triggers mandatory continuation — Action continued under Rule 76 ordered
  Procedure — Jury — Civil jury trials — Rule 47, Courts of Justice Act, s. 108 — Should the jury notice be struck when proceeding in simplified procedure? — Does loss of jury alone constitute non-compensable prejudice? — Girao v. Cunningham and MacLeod referenced on yielding to practicality and proportionality — No specific prejudice shown — Jury notice struck
  Procedure — Trial management — Simplified procedure five-day limit — Does the five-day trial limit cause non-compensable prejudice? — Limited witnesses, affidavit evidence, and proportionality emphasised, Belfiori referenced — No evidentiary basis that five days inadequate — Parties must govern themselves accordingly where amount in dispute is less than $200,000 — Objection to five-day limit rejected
• 2026-04-15 Birnbaum v. Dr. Chan., 2026 ONSC 2009 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Labour and employment — Human rights accommodation — Disability accommodation during COVID‑19 — Whether refusal of remote work met duty to accommodate under the Human Rights Code — Hydro‑Québec test for undue hardship applied — BCGSEU factors considered in small clinic context — Confidentiality constraints and precipitous pandemic conditions — Two‑week paid leave and in‑office safeguards provided — Code breach not proven
  Labour and employment — Dismissal for cause — After‑acquired cause — Whether misuse of EMR and confidentiality breaches justified dismissal — Dowling contextual analysis and proportionality applied, with reference to McKinley — Creation and use of personal and family charts in Accuro — Audit logs evidencing ongoing misconduct despite warning — Trust irreparably undermined — Just cause established
  Labour and employment — Discrimination and reprisal — Employment termination — Whether age and disability discrimination or reprisal under the Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act occurred — Contextual analysis of small clinic operations and accommodations — Insufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or reprisal — Pay in lieu of notice initially offered then withdrawn after discovery — Claims dismissed
• 2026-04-15 Senso Group Building Supplies Inc. v. 57-63 Finch Developments Inc., 2026 ONSC 2235 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Construction — Lien security — Expired lien — Whether security posted to vacate an expired lien can satisfy another party’s costs or interest — CLA s. 44(9) rule 2 pooling limited to lien claimants — Mandatory return on expiry under CLA ss. 45(3), 46(4) — Non‑lien claimant recovery from lien security rejected — Security posted by related non‑party returned — Requests to access TMAP security denied
  Construction — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Should substantial indemnity costs be awarded against both defendants, jointly and severally — Costs discretion under CLA s. 86(1) and least expensive course under s. 86(2) — Unmeritorious defences and summary character of lien proceedings considered — Owner’s holdback position rejected — Pay‑when‑paid defence failed — Substantial indemnity costs fixed for lien claimant, joint and several liability
  Procedure — Costs — Self‑represented litigant — Entitlement of self‑represented party to costs for trial time — Girao v. Cunningham two‑part framework applied — No evidence of opportunity cost or lost remunerative activity — Joint and several liability for costs with contractor where owner drawn into action by non‑payment — Enforcement of award stayed pending crossclaims — Partial indemnity costs awarded in part, enforcement stayed in part
  Procedure — Interest — Pre‑judgment interest — Calculation under Courts of Justice Act s. 130(2) considering changes in market interest rates — Quarterly fluctuating rates applied as uncontested — Per diem specified where provided, calculated where absent — Interest amounts fixed for lien judgment, contract judgment, and subcontractor’s contract judgment — Interest awarded as calculated by the successful claimants
• 2026-04-15 Richmond v. His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario et al., 2026 ONSC 2246 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Rule 2.1.01 stay or dismissal — Frivolous or vexatious proceeding — Whether the action should be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process — Principles from Simon-Aaron v. Food Basics and Gao v. Ontario applied — Proceeding devoid of merit and not a close call — Judicial resources and culture shift in Hryniak considered — Action dismissed under Rule 2.1.01
  Procedure — Abuse of process — Relitigation — Do duplicative claims previously dismissed constitute an abuse of process precluding relitigation? — Prior Cochrane and Newmarket actions identified and unappealed — Refiling in a different court to seek a different result condemned — Prosecutor’s in-court statements immune, issue already decided — Duplicative claims struck as an abuse of process
  Civil liability — Torts — Malicious prosecution and false imprisonment — Do pleaded facts disclose malicious prosecution or false imprisonment from recent police encounters? — Bobel v. Humecka, Patten cited for elements — No prosecution initiated and no total deprivation of liberty pled — Police authority to block highway and address bicycle equipment — No tort established
  Limitation periods — Statutory deadlines — Time-barred claims — Are some claims barred by the applicable limitations period? — Alleged seizure and sale of vehicle occurring before 2021 — Claim out of time under the limitations period — Overlap with previously dismissed action reinforces bar — Time-barred claim dismissed under Rule 2.1.01
• 2026-04-15 Surace v. Reis, 2026 ONSC 2251 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Oppression remedy — Fiduciary duties of directors and officers — Whether conduct oppressing the Applicant and breaching fiduciary duties under the unanimous shareholders’ agreement — Diversion of employees and revenues to a competing company, commingling, failure to maintain books and remit trust funds — Conflict of interest contrary to OBCA, s. 134(3) — Oppression and breach of fiduciary duty found
  Business associations — Remedies — Disgorgement — Appropriate oppression remedy for usurpation of corporate opportunities — Prophylactic disgorgement of profits gained by Dupont during conflicted period — Gains-based relief independent of precise loss, per Extreme Venture Partners Fund I LP v. Varma — Joint and several liability of fiduciary and beneficiary company — Disgorgement ordered
  Contracts — Corporate succession arrangements — October 18, 2019 agreement — Whether respondent must indemnify for 50% of any shortfall and secure by mortgaging residence if needed — Terms triggered if receivership funds insufficient to retire CIBC facility — Certificate of pending litigation permitted — Indemnity and mortgage security required
  Procedure — Affidavit evidence — Late filing — Whether two affidavits delivered after cross-examinations should be admitted — Breach of scheduling order and failure to seek leave under Rule 39.02(2) — No identified matter raised on cross-examination warranting response — Last-minute materials unfair — Affidavits struck

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-04-14 Wegmart Ltd. v. Meier, 2026 ONSC 2012 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Oppression and remedies — Winding up under OBCA s. 207 — Whether the application judge erred in refusing a winding up — Quarrelling and incompatibility not sufficient for equitable winding up (Animal House) — Tailored oppression remedies preferred over liquidation (Basegmez) — Unclean hands principle considered (D'Andrea) — Refusal to wind up upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Whether substantial indemnity costs were warranted and reasonable — Objectives of costs and discretion applied — Reprehensible conduct, stonewalling, failed settlement efforts, unwarranted cross-application noted (Davies v. Clarington) — Time spent and expert disbursements addressed — No palpable and overriding error or legal error shown — Costs award on substantial indemnity basis affirmed
  Limitation periods — Shareholder remedies — Audited financial statements — Whether a new two‑year limitation defence may be raised on appeal to narrow audit order — Test for new issues on appeal applied (R. v. Reid) — Lagana considered, discoverability under Limitation Act, 2002, s. 5(1) not ruled out — Evidentiary record inadequate, leave refused — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-04-14 Tucci v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2026 ONSC 1794 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Reasons — Whether the OLRB failed to consider the applicant’s submissions — Tribunal not required to address every submission in detail — Reasons assessed holistically under Vavilov — Directions sought, submissions received and addressed — Coherent engagement with arguments found — No denial of right to be heard — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Were findings of collateral attack and abuse of process reasonable given s. 50(2) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the December decision? — Election to proceed by arbitration precluded duplicative OLRB complaint — “Without prejudice” caveat not licence to re‑commence before arbitration concluded — Reasonableness standard applied per Vavilov — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Administrative law — Delay — Prima facie case — Was reliance on delay and failure to plead a prima facie violation reasonable? — Blencoe distinguished as concerning tribunal delay, not delay in commencing proceedings — Presumed prejudice after lengthy delay applied per OLRB jurisprudence — Conclusory allegations insufficient to establish prima facie OHSA s. 50 breach — Reconsideration denial upheld — Application for judicial review dismissed
• 2026-04-13 Sergovich v. Trinca, 2026 ONSC 1620 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Dismissal for delay — Armstrong test — Whether Motion Judge erred in finding no substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible despite inordinate and inexcusable delay — Presumption of prejudice arising from delay addressed — Pleadings and complete solicitor’s files considered sufficient to permit a fair trial — Decision confined to unamended Statement of Claim — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Delay motions — Prejudice — Was the presumption of prejudice rebutted and was actual prejudice established from the loss of viva voce evidence of the deceased solicitor — Reliance on Baramnick significant bearing threshold — No evidentiary foundation that oral testimony would add to documents — No proof of actual prejudice established by appellant — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Housen v. Nikolaisen applied — Errors of law reviewed for correctness and factual or mixed findings for palpable and overriding error — Findings on inordinate delay, rebuttal of prejudice, and actual prejudice upheld — No palpable or overriding error demonstrated — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Leave to appeal costs and post‑judgment interest — Courts of Justice Act, s. 133(b) stringent test for leave — Commencement of interest under s. 129(1) tied to date costs are due — Quantum and timing assessed for proportionality and reasonableness under r. 57.01(1) — No error in principle and not plainly wrong — Leave to appeal costs refused
• 2026-04-13 RBC Insurance Company of Canada v. Natario, 2026 ONSC 1737 (CanLII)
  Key Words: determined — costs — writing — panel — motion
• 2026-04-10 Rahman v. Hamami, 2026 ONSC 1991 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Practice — Motion for leave to appeal — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.2