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

• 2025-08-25 Toronto Revolver Club v. Chief Firearms Officer, 2025 ONSC 4833 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Chief Firearms Officer — Shooting range approvals — Conditions on approvals — Whether the Chief Firearms Officer has the authority to impose conditions on shooting range approvals under section 29 of the Firearms Act — Statutory framework limits CFO’s authority to granting or revoking approvals — No implied power to attach conditions — Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, s. 29
  Statutory interpretation — Implied powers — Firearms Act — Whether the statutory framework permits the implication of powers not expressly granted to the Chief Firearms Officer — Test for implied statutory powers requires practical necessity — Implied exclusion principle applied — CFO’s authority limited to granting or revoking approvals — Firearms Act, S.C. 1995, c. 39, s. 29
• 2025-08-25 Spiteri v. Mashin, 2025 ONSC 4871 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Motions to set aside orders — Full and fair disclosure — Plaintiff moved to set aside an ex parte order issued on August 6, 2025, alleging failure to disclose material facts — Whether the August 6, 2025 Order should be set aside under Rule 39.01(6) — Rule 39.01(6) requires full and fair disclosure of all material facts, and failure to do so is sufficient grounds to set aside an order
  Evidence — Disclosure — Ex parte motions — Plaintiff alleged that the moving party failed to disclose prior judicial decisions relevant to the matter — Whether failure to disclose prior decisions constitutes a breach of disclosure obligations — Rule 39.01(6) governs disclosure requirements for ex parte motions
  Property — Abuse of process — Collateral attack — New action commenced by Plaintiff seeking to invalidate a second mortgage and relitigate issues decided in prior summary judgment — Whether the new action constitutes an abuse of process and impermissible collateral attack — Abuse of process doctrine prohibits relitigation of issues already decided
  Statutory interpretation — Interlocutory injunctions — Duration limits — Interlocutory injunction granted on August 6, 2025, exceeded the permissible 10-day duration under Rule 40.02(1) — Whether the injunction was invalid due to non-compliance with Rule 40.02(1) — Rule 40.02(1) limits the duration of interlocutory injunctions granted without notice to 10 days unless extended by the court
• 2025-08-25 Denny’s Lube Centre (2016) Inc. v. 1121209 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 4879 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease — Commercial lease — Costs — Successful party — Landlord and tenant relationship — Applicant sought compliance with lease obligations and estoppel against rent claims prior to January 1, 2021 — Was the successful party entitled to costs under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure? — Rule 49.10 applied as the offer to settle was not accepted, and judgment was as favourable or more favourable than the offer
  Civil procedure — Costs — Quantum of costs — Factors under Rule 57.01 — Applicant claimed $35,585.01 in costs, including partial and substantial indemnity costs and disbursements — Respondent argued costs were excessive and sought a reduction — Was the quantum of costs fair, reasonable, and proportionate? — Costs awarded based on fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality under Rule 57.01
  Civil procedure — Disbursements — Reasonableness of claimed expenses — Applicant included a "Firm Administration Expense" disbursement of $169.50 — Respondent challenged the reasonableness of this expense — Should specific disbursements be disallowed as unreasonable or unrelated to the litigation? — Disbursement disallowed as its purpose was unclear and unrelated to the litigation
• 2025-08-22 Dyke et al. v. The Bombshelter Pub et al., 2025 ONSC 4845 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs — Discretion of the court — Motion for costs following a discovery motion — Principles governing the court’s discretion to award costs under section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Factors considered include fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and success on the motion — Modern costs rules aim to indemnify successful litigants, discourage frivolous claims, and encourage settlements
  Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Defendants substantially successful on motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals — Defendants awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,302.13, inclusive of HST and disbursements — Calculation based on 82% success rate and reasonable expectations of the parties — Costs fixed in accordance with Rule 57.01 and Tariff A
  Civil procedure — Costs — Costs “in the cause” — Plaintiff argued costs should be “in the cause” or borne by each party — Court declined to order costs “in the cause,” finding no reason to defer costs determination to trial — Costs awarded to defendants as the substantially successful parties — Rule 57.01 and proportionality principles applied
• 2025-08-22 Ierullo v. Ierullo et al, 2025 ONSC 4851 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Costs in family proceedings — Combined family and civil trial — Equalization payment and oppression damages awarded — Divided success between spousal parties — Should costs be awarded to the wife and Forever Thyme Sanctuary for the family and civil proceedings? — Principles of fairness and proportionality applied — Costs awarded to the wife for specific pre-trial motions only
  Property — Costs in civil proceedings — Husband’s claims of fraud and oppression dismissed — Wife and MacLean seek costs for civil proceedings — Husband opposes costs or seeks his own costs — Should MacLean be awarded costs for the civil proceedings? — Rule 49 offer to settle considered — Costs awarded to MacLean with reductions for excessive claims and her role in the transaction
  Property — Costs in civil proceedings — Husband’s claims of fraud and oppression dismissed — Husband seeks costs for civil proceedings — Should the husband be awarded costs for the civil proceedings? — Husband’s conduct in initiating unnecessary civil action considered — No costs awarded to the husband
  Civil procedure — Costs principles — Combined family and civil proceedings — Application of Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Principles of indemnity, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate conduct — Reasonableness and proportionality in costs awards — Framework for awarding costs in family and civil litigation

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-08-25 Swerdfiger v. Director of the Ontario Disability Support Program, 2025 ONSC 4829 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Social Benefits Tribunal — Appeal of denial of special diet allowance under Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997 — Tribunal’s interpretation of eligibility criteria for special diet allowance — Whether Tribunal’s decision was reasonable and procedurally fair — Standard of review for questions of law and procedural fairness — Correctness standard applied — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
  Social welfare — Special diet allowance — Eligibility criteria — Appellant denied allowance for ARFID, a condition not listed in the Schedule of eligible medical conditions — Whether Tribunal erred in interpreting O. Reg. 562/05 and Ball test — Appellant’s evidence of increased food costs insufficient to meet third Ball criterion — Tribunal’s reliance on Ball v. Ontario (Community and Social Services), 2010 HRTO 360
  Civil procedure — Procedural fairness — Tribunal rules — Appellant alleged discriminatory application of Tribunal’s rules — Whether Tribunal’s rules precluded appellant from submitting additional evidence — Tribunal’s reconsideration decision upheld due to lack of due diligence in obtaining evidence — Ontario Social Benefits Tribunal, Rules of Procedure for Appeals to the Social Benefits Tribunal
  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Equality rights — Section 15 — Appellant alleged discrimination in exclusion of ARFID from Schedule of eligible medical conditions for special diet allowance — Whether exclusion violated equality rights under section 15 of the Charter — No sufficient record or notice of constitutional question provided — Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 109
  Evidence — Ball test — Increased food costs — Appellant’s evidence of oral nutritional supplements insufficient to establish increased costs under Ball test — Tribunal found evidence unclear on whether supplements were additional to or substituted for a regular healthy diet — Whether Tribunal erred in assessing evidence — Standard of review for findings of fact
  International law — United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) — Appellant alleged failure of legislative framework to meet UNCRPD standards — Whether UNCRPD obligations enforceable in domestic law — Argument raised for first time on appeal — Insufficient record to consider issue
• 2025-08-25 Berentschot v. Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4857 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Jurisdiction — Judicial review — Divisional Court — Application for judicial review of a Superior Court judge’s decision — Whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of Superior Court judges — Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. J.1, s. 1 — Courts of Justice Act, ss. 6, 19 — Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to dismiss the application as an abuse of process
  Statutory interpretation — Judicial Review Procedure Act — Definition of "statutory power of decision" — Whether the Divisional Court has jurisdiction to review decisions of Superior Court judges — Interpretation of statutory limits on judicial review — Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. J.1, s. 1 — Statutory courts limited to powers conferred by enabling statutes
  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 24(1) — Jurisdictional limits — Whether section 24(1) of the Charter overrides statutory jurisdictional limits — Charter claims and statutory courts — Section 24(1) does not expand jurisdiction of statutory courts — Mills v. The Queen, [1986] 1 SCR 863
  Rights and freedoms — Frivolous and vexatious claims — Rule 2.1.01 — Application of Rule 2.1.01 to Charter claims — Whether constitutional claims are immune from dismissal under Rule 2.1.01 — Charter claims subject to procedural rules — Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100 — Scaduto v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733
• 2025-08-22 Kalisz v. Rolfe, 2025 ONSC 4741 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Evidence — Solicitor-client privilege — Fraud — Civil fraud versus criminal fraud — Whether solicitor-client privilege bars the production of documents evidencing intent to commit fraud — Distinction between civil and criminal fraud — Actus reus and mens rea for fraud — Standard of proof in civil versus criminal proceedings — Conflicting case law on privilege exceptions — Leave to appeal granted in part — Governing principles for privilege exceptions in fraud cases
  Evidence — Privacy — Admissibility of evidence — Photographs of documents — Breach of reasonable expectation of privacy — Whether photographs of documents taken in breach of privacy are admissible as evidence of fraud or criminal misconduct — Balancing privacy interests against evidentiary value — Leave to appeal granted in part — Framework for weighing privacy and evidentiary considerations
  Professional responsibility — Removal of counsel — Conflict of interest — Whether the wife's lawyer should be removed as counsel of record — Leave to appeal denied on this issue — Costs of leave application deferred to appeal panel — Governing principles for removal of counsel in family-related disputes
• 2025-08-22 Paragon Protection Ltd v. Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada Limited, 2025 ONSC 4743 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Leave to appeal — Motion for leave to appeal decision of Penny J. dated March 24, 2025 — Leave to appeal dismissed — Whether the court erred in dismissing the motion for leave to appeal — Governing principles for granting leave to appeal in civil matters
  Estates and trusts — Estate trustees — Motion for leave to appeal involving estate trustees of the Estate of Cyril Hirsh Rosenthal — Whether leave to appeal should be granted in a dispute involving estate trustees — No order as to costs
• 2025-08-22 Sarma v. Sarma, 2025 ONSC 4744 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: inclusive — writing — motion — leave — pay