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

• 2025-07-02 Bank of Montreal v. Hossain, 2025 ONSC 3950 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Mortgages — Priority of charges — Equitable subrogation — Bank of Montreal advanced funds to discharge a prior first mortgage with the intention of securing first-ranking priority — 10655252 Canada Corporation registered a second mortgage before the Bank of Montreal's mortgage was registered — Does the doctrine of equitable subrogation apply to grant the Bank of Montreal first-ranking priority? — Criteria for equitable subrogation established in Crosbie-Hill v. Sayer applied<br />Property — Land registration — Rectification of title — Bank of Montreal sought an order to rectify the title of the Bennett Property to reflect its mortgage as first-ranking — Should the Land Registrar rectify the title to reflect the priority of the Bank of Montreal's mortgage? — Land Registrar directed to amend the register to reflect the court's declaration of priority<br />Professional responsibility — Solicitor negligence — Mortgage registration — Solicitor failed to discharge a prior mortgage and register the Bank of Montreal's mortgage in first priority — Solicitor acted for both lenders and failed to conduct proper title searches — Did the solicitor's negligence or misconduct affect the application of equitable subrogation? — Negligence of solicitor does not preclude equitable subrogation where lender's hands remain clean
• 2025-07-02 1660841 Ontario Ltd. v. 2259778 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 3937 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Commercial lease — Breach of lease terms — Tenant operated a granite and marble fabrication business — Breach of lease provisions by cutting a hole in the concrete floor, clogging the floor drain, and leaving debris — Landlord awarded $68,043.52 in damages for repairs and waste removal — Did the tenant breach the lease, and are the damages reasonably foreseeable? — Breach of lease terms and foreseeability of damages established<br />Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Tenant failed to file evidence or submissions and did not attend the hearing — Landlord moved for summary judgment — Should summary judgment be granted in favour of the landlord? — Summary judgment granted as no genuine issue for trial existed under Rule 20<br />Contracts — Breach of contract — Damages — Landlord sought damages for tenant’s breach of lease — Damages included repair costs and waste removal — Are the damages flowing from the breach of contract quantifiable and reasonable? — Damages awarded as reasonably foreseeable and quantifiable<br />Lease — Costs — Motion for summary judgment — Landlord sought $5,000 in costs for the motion — Is the landlord entitled to costs of the motion? — Costs awarded as fair and reasonable in the circumstances
• 2025-06-30 Beijing Hehe Fengye Investment Co. Limited v. Fasken Martineau Dumoulin LLP, 2025 ONSC 3881 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Security for costs — Non-resident plaintiff — Motion for security for costs brought under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether the plaintiff corporation had sufficient assets in Ontario or a reciprocating jurisdiction to satisfy a costs award — Balancing access to justice with the risk of unenforceable costs awards — Court ordered security for costs of $140,000 — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56.01(1)(d)<br />Professional responsibility — Conflict of interest — Allegations of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and misuse of confidential information against a law firm and its consultants — Whether the defendants acted in conflict by representing competing parties in a commercial transaction — No written retainer agreement or engagement letter between the plaintiffs and the defendants — Governing principles for determining solicitor-client relationships and fiduciary duties<br />Evidence — Joint claims — Whether the plaintiffs’ claims were joint such that security for costs should not be ordered against the non-resident plaintiff — Claims must “succeed or fail together” to qualify as joint — Court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were not joint due to differing allegations and potential for separate costs awards — Test for joint claims under Vogel v. Trinity Capital Corp. applied
• 2025-06-30 Reid v. Town of Bracebridge and Tatham, 2025 ONSC 3884 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Fixing of costs — Discretion of the court — Factors under Rule 57.01 — Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal order denied — Defendant awarded costs for dismissal of action and motion to dismiss — What principles govern the fixing of costs in civil litigation? — Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Proportionality and reasonableness — Defendant sought costs of $86,485.09 for dismissal of action and $57,211.74 for motion to dismiss — Plaintiff argued costs were disproportionate and excessive — Whether the costs sought were fair, reasonable, and proportionate under the circumstances? — Costs awarded as sought, reflecting complexity and conduct of litigation<br />Civil procedure — Costs — Senior counsel involvement — Defendant retained senior counsel with billing rate of $700/hour, reduced to $420/hour on partial indemnity basis — Plaintiff argued tasks should have been delegated to junior counsel or clerks — Whether senior counsel’s involvement and billing rates were justified? — Court upheld use of senior counsel, citing expertise and efficiency
• 2025-06-30 Wang v. Canada, 2025 ONSC 3885 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Frivolous and vexatious claims — Dismissal of actions — Plaintiff’s claim identified as potentially frivolous and vexatious under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Should the plaintiff’s claim be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious? — Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194<br />Civil procedure — Procedural steps — Notice to plaintiff — Registrar directed to issue notice in Form 2.1A to plaintiff regarding potential dismissal of action — Pending written hearing, action stayed under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act — What procedural steps should be taken when a claim is identified as potentially frivolous or vexatious? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 2.1.01(3), (4); Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 106<br />Civil procedure — Court authority — Stay of proceedings — Restriction on further filings — Court ordered registrar to accept no further filings except plaintiff’s written submissions under Rule 2.1.01(3) — Does the court have the authority to stay proceedings and restrict further filings pending the outcome of a written hearing? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 2.1.01(3)

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 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<br />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<br />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<br />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 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<br />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<br />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<br />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<br />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
• 2025-06-27 Benabed v. Levasseur, 2025 ONSC 3692 (CanLII)
  Key Words: leave — inclusive — time — extension — writing
• 2025-06-27 Montaleone v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONSC 3693 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — writing — payable — motion — leave
• 2025-06-27 Caiden Keller Homes Inc. v. Maple Build Ltd., 2025 ONSC 3694 (CanLII)
  Key Words: inclusive — writing — motion — leave — agreed