Abonnez-vous aux fils de nouvelles RSS afin de consulter les décisions de la Cour supérieure de justice

• Cour supérieure de justice – Décisions récentes
• Cour divisionnaire – Décisions récentes

Cour supérieure de justice – décisions récentes

• Cineplex v. Cineworld, 2021 ONSC 8016
• Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel et al, 2022 ONSC 1344

• 2025-07-31 Allvey-Greiss v. Greiss, 2025 ONSC 4438 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Monetary penalty — Non-compliance with disclosure orders — Chronic, untimely, and incomplete financial disclosure — Breach of multiple court orders — Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules — Proportionality of sanctions — Deterrence of non-compliance — Father ordered to pay $10,000 penalty — Governing principles from Roberts v. Roberts and K.M. v. J.R
  Family — Respite care — Adult child with severe Autism Spectrum Disorder — Mother seeking proportionate sharing of respite care costs — Parenting arrangements and capacity assessment required before determining respite care expenses — Autonomy of adult child — Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 — Motion adjourned pending capacity determination
  Family — Capacity assessment — Adult child’s decision-making capacity in issue — Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, s. 79 — Balancing public interest and privacy — Insufficient evidence to order capacity assessment — Test from Scott v. Wilson — Motion adjourned for better materials
  Family — Interim parenting time — Father seeking interim parenting time with adult child — Capacity of adult child to participate in proceedings unresolved — Parenting arrangements contingent on capacity determination — Motion adjourned pending capacity assessment
• 2025-07-31 Barrie Municipal Not-Profit Housing Corporation v. Dyck, 2025 ONSC 4476 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Anti-SLAPP motion — Dismissal of defamation action — Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s defamation claim under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act — Whether the Defendant’s expression related to a matter of public interest — Whether the Plaintiff’s claim had substantial merit — Framework for analyzing anti-SLAPP motions under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act
  Rights and freedoms — Freedom of expression — Public interest — Defendant alleged systemic overcharging and criminal wrongdoing by Plaintiff, a social housing provider — Whether the Defendant’s expression related to a matter of public interest — Expression found to manufacture public concern from a private dispute — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(b) — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 137.1
  Evidence — Defamation — Substantial merit of claim — Defendant’s social media posts alleged criminality and compared Plaintiff’s staff to Nazis and witches — No evidence of criminal wrongdoing or systemic issues — Whether the Plaintiff’s defamation claim had substantial merit — Test for substantial merit under s. 137.1(4)(a)(i) of the Courts of Justice Act
  Evidence — Defamation — Valid defences — Defendant conceded that defamatory statements were knowingly false — No valid defence of responsible communication, absolute privilege, or qualified privilege — Whether the Defendant had a valid defence under s. 137.1(4)(a)(ii) of the Courts of Justice Act
  Rights and freedoms — Balancing public interest — Defamation — Public interest in allowing defamation action to proceed outweighed public interest in protecting expression — Defendant’s inflammatory rhetoric diminished real issues faced by low-income tenants — Framework for weighing public interest under s. 137.1(4)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act
• 2025-07-31 Mizrahi v. Rogers, 2025 ONSC 4439 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Pleadings — Motion to strike — Amended Statement of Claim — Defendants moved to strike the Amended Statement of Claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action — Should the Amended Statement of Claim be struck out? — Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions to strike pleadings for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action
  Civil procedure — Leave to amend — Plaintiffs granted leave to amend the Amended Statement of Claim — Should leave to amend be denied due to prejudice or delay? — Leave to amend should only be denied in the clearest of cases — South Holly Holdings Limited v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank, 2007 ONCA 456
  Obligations — Partnership — Existence of partnership — Plaintiffs alleged a partnership with Defendants in real estate projects — Does the Amended Statement of Claim sufficiently plead the existence of a partnership? — Partnership requires a business carried on in common with a view to profit — Backman v. Canada, 2001 SCC 10
  Contracts — Breach of contract — Privity of contract — Plaintiffs alleged breach of multiple contracts — Does the Amended Statement of Claim disclose a reasonable cause of action for breach of contract? — Plaintiffs must plead the existence of a valid contract, breach, and privity — Brown v. Belleville (City), 2013 ONCA 148
  Torts — Negligence — Negligent misrepresentation — Tortious interference with economic interests — Conspiracy — Plaintiffs alleged multiple torts, including negligence and conspiracy — Does the Amended Statement of Claim disclose reasonable causes of action for these torts? — Plaintiffs must plead material facts with clarity and precision to establish each tort — A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12
• 2025-07-31 Clarke’s Outpost Inc. v. Olowolafe, 2025 ONSC 4467 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Motions to set aside orders — Summary judgment — Defendants sought to set aside summary judgment order under Rule 37.14(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether defendants failed to appear due to accident, mistake, or insufficient notice — Motion dismissed as defendants' counsel made a conscious decision not to attend — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 37.14(b)
  Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Plaintiffs sought costs of $9,000 on a substantial indemnity basis or $6,000 on a partial indemnity basis — Court awarded $6,000 in partial indemnity costs as reasonable and proportionate — No egregious conduct by defendants — Costs fixed payable jointly and severally by defendants
  Evidence — Medical evidence — Failure to attend hearing — Defendants' counsel claimed inability to attend due to medical reasons — Medical note provided lacked independent verification and was based on hearsay — Evidence insufficient to establish urgent medical condition preventing attendance — Rule 37.14(b) not satisfied
  Contracts — Breach of contract — Misrepresentation — Plaintiffs alleged defendants failed to repay funds invested in real estate scheme — Evidence included affidavits, cross-examinations, and admissions in statement of defence — Court found breaches of contract and misrepresentation — Summary judgment granted as no genuine issue requiring trial existed
• 2025-07-31 K. Sidiropoulos et al. v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation, 2025 ONSC 4479 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Health — Hospital privileges — Jurisdiction — Public Hospitals Act — Physician's privileges suspended and revoked for non-compliance with COVID-19 vaccination policy — Whether claims for damages related to privileges fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board — Superior Court of Justice jurisdiction limited to claims unrelated to the bona fides of privileges decisions — Public Hospitals Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.40
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Statutory schemes — Public Hospitals Act — Comprehensive statutory process for hospital privileges decisions — Whether claims for damages indirectly challenging privileges decisions are within the court's jurisdiction — Court lacks jurisdiction to revisit privileges decisions not appealed under the statutory scheme
  Professional responsibility — Defamation — Misfeasance in public office — Allegations of reputational harm and public malfeasance — Claims based on hospital's alleged misrepresentation to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario — Whether claims require revisiting hospital privileges decisions — Claims struck with leave to amend to address deficiencies
  Rights and freedoms — Limitation periods — Limitations Act, 2002 — Statute-barred claims — Whether amended claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and human rights violations constitute new causes of action — Claims not statute-barred as they arise from the same factual matrix as the original statement of claim
  Civil procedure — Pleadings — Leave to amend — Plaintiffs' amended statement of claim struck for deficiencies — Leave to amend granted for defamation and misfeasance in public office claims — Leave denied for claims requiring the court to revisit hospital privileges decisions — Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-07-31 Faulknor v. Li, 2025 ONSC 4415 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease — Residential tenancies — Eviction — Consent orders — Tenants failed to comply with consent orders requiring payment of arrears and vacating the property by a specified date — Tenants sought an extension of time to file a review of the consent orders, citing inability to find alternate accommodations — Does the Divisional Court have jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the LTB's dismissal of the extension request? — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210(1) — Leave to appeal required for consent orders
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Landlord and Tenant Board — Appeal of LTB decision dismissing tenants' request for an extension of time to file a review of consent orders — Whether the LTB erred in dismissing the request — Tenants failed to identify an error in the consent orders or in the LTB's process — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 133(a)
  Lease — Residential tenancies — Compassionate grounds — Tenants argued eviction would render them homeless and sought relief based on inability to find alternate accommodations — Whether compassionate grounds or factual circumstances can override legal requirements for eviction — Appeal dismissed as no question of law was raised
  Civil procedure — Costs — Landlord sought costs of $1,500 for the appeal — Court found the amount reasonable and ordered tenants to pay within 30 days — Costs awarded inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST
• 2025-07-30 Sakab Saudi Holding Company v. Saad Khalid S Al Jabri, 2025 ONSC 3591 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Leave to appeal — Mootness — Both parties sought leave to appeal a decision of Cavanagh J. dated December 2, 2024 — Moving parties' motion for leave to appeal dismissed — Responding parties' motion for leave to appeal granted — Mootness of the moving parties' issue precluded granting leave in the context of the case — Costs to be determined by the panel hearing the appeal — Governing principles for granting leave to appeal in civil matters
• 2025-07-30 Waterloo North Condominium Corporation No. 37 v. Baha, 2025 ONSC 4449 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Condominium law — Costs — Indemnification provisions — Appeal of tribunal decision — Condominium corporation sought to apply indemnification provisions of its declaration to recover costs from an appeal — Can indemnification provisions in a condominium declaration apply to costs arising from an appeal? — Indemnification provisions cannot reasonably be applied to costs of an appeal where no public interest considerations are at stake
  Civil procedure — Costs — Full indemnity costs — Presumption of partial indemnity — Respondents sought full indemnity costs in appeal under the Condominium Act, 1998 — Should costs be awarded on a full indemnity basis in the context of an appeal? — Presumption of partial indemnity costs not rebutted in absence of misconduct or public interest considerations
  Statutory interpretation — Condominium Act, 1998 — Section 134(3) — Application versus appeal — Respondents relied on section 134(3) to support claim for full indemnity costs — Does section 134(3) of the Condominium Act, 1998 apply to appeals? — Section 134(3) applies to applications, not appeals, for the purposes of awarding costs
• 2025-07-29 Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc., 2025 ONSC 3349 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Relief from forfeiture — Optional accident benefits — Insureds applied to the wrong insurer due to an innocent mistake — Insurer denied benefits under OPCF 47 endorsement — Does section 129 of the Insurance Act allow relief from forfeiture to claim optional benefits? — Relief granted to uphold consumer protection objectives of the SABS — Insurance Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I.8, s. 129
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction of administrative tribunals — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Whether LAT has jurisdiction to grant equitable relief under section 129 of the Insurance Act — Tribunal’s broad statutory authority to decide all questions of law and fact — LAT found to have jurisdiction to apply section 129 in disputes over statutory accident benefits
  Statutory interpretation — Definition of "court" — Whether the term "court" in section 129 of the Insurance Act includes the LAT — Interpretation of consumer protection legislation to achieve remedial objectives — Broad interpretation of "court" to include LAT as the exclusive forum for statutory accident benefits disputes
  Insurance — Consumer protection — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) — Interpretation of SABS as remedial legislation — Objective to reduce economic hardship for motor vehicle accident victims — Relief from forfeiture granted to prevent unfair denial of optional benefits due to procedural error
• 2025-07-29 Valentine v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2025 ONSC 4395 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Securities — Trading Ban — Breach of Ontario Securities Commission order — Appellant banned from trading in securities and acting as an officer or director — Tribunal found appellant acted in furtherance of trades in pledged securities — Did the Tribunal err in its interpretation of the statutory carve-out for good faith collateral transfers? — Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5 — Contextual approach to determining acts in furtherance of trades
  Administrative law — Tribunal decisions — Standard of review — Palpable and overriding error — Appellant challenged Tribunal’s findings on acts in furtherance of trades — Tribunal relied on evidence of appellant’s role in analyzing pledged securities and facilitating transactions — Did the Tribunal err in relying on irrelevant or insufficiently proximate factors? — Contextual analysis of conduct in furtherance of trades
  Evidence — Compensation as evidence of trading — Appellant’s compensation tied to profits from sale of pledged securities — Tribunal found compensation supported conclusion that appellant acted in furtherance of trades — Did the Tribunal err in assessing compensation as evidence of trading-related conduct? — Receipt of consideration as a strong indication of acts in furtherance of trades