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

• 2025-10-09 Afshari v. Privitera, 2025 ONSC 5758 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Partial summary judgment — Dismissal of counterclaim — Defendant by counterclaim sought summary dismissal of claims against it — Whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial — Whether partial summary judgment was appropriate — Rule 20.04(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied — Hryniak v. Mauldin framework for summary judgment motions
  Civil procedure — Striking pleadings — Reasonable cause of action — Counterclaim alleged vicarious liability of brokerage for agent’s private transactions — Whether counterclaim disclosed a reasonable cause of action — Pleadings must contain material facts, not bald allegations — Rule 21.01(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Frivolous or vexatious pleadings — Counterclaim alleged liability of brokerage without evidence of involvement in transactions — Whether counterclaim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  Civil procedure — Vicarious liability — Brokerage liability for agent’s conduct — Agent acted in personal capacity after cancelling listing agreements — No significant connection between brokerage’s enterprise and alleged wrongdoing — Bazley v. Curry test for vicarious liability applied
• 2025-10-09 R. v. Brennan, 2025 ONSC 5748 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Summary dismissal — Threshold for summary dismissal — Application alleging institutional bias based on historical involvement of Jesuits with Indigenous peoples — Whether the application was "manifestly frivolous" — Supreme Court of Canada guidance in R. v. Haevischer — Test for summary dismissal in criminal law — Application dismissed as failing to meet the threshold for institutional bias
  Indigenous peoples — Institutional bias — Allegations of bias based on historical involvement of Jesuits with Indigenous peoples — Accused argued institutional bias crystalized by Crown's cross-examination of Indigenous witness — Whether historical context and questioning created a reasonable apprehension of bias — Application dismissed for lack of evidence of systemic bias
  Constitution — United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) — Traditional Indigenous circle as a remedy — Accused sought resolution through a traditional Indigenous circle under UNDRIP principles — Whether the proposed remedy aligned with constitutional guarantees of fair trial rights — Application dismissed as inconsistent with trial process
  Evidence — Summary dismissal — Evidence required to meet the threshold for institutional bias — Accused submitted affidavit and historical context to support allegations of bias — Court found no evidence of systemic bias or structural impartiality — Strong presumption of judicial impartiality upheld
• 2025-10-08 1650661 Ontario Inc. v. Emonds, 2025 ONSC 5695 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Pleadings — Amendments — Defendants sought leave to amend pleadings under Rule 26 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that the amendments would resile from prior admissions — Whether the amendments raised a triable issue or were a tactical move to frustrate justice — Rule 26 governs amendments unless inconsistent admissions are involved — Leave to amend granted except for the non est factum defence
  Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Interaction between Rule 26 and Rule 51.05 — Plaintiffs argued that Rule 51.05, governing withdrawal of admissions, superseded Rule 26 — Court held that Rule 51.05 applies only to specific admissions under Rule 51.03 or pleadings — Rule 26 applied to the motion to amend pleadings
  Evidence — Admissions — Defendants allegedly made admissions in affidavits and cross-examinations regarding promissory notes and repayment terms — Plaintiffs argued that the proposed amendments were inconsistent with these admissions — Court found no inconsistency except regarding repayment terms — Antipas test applied only to inconsistent admissions
  Contracts — Defences — Non est factum — Defendants sought to plead non est factum, alleging misunderstanding of the promissory note terms — Court held that prior admissions regarding the note’s terms precluded reliance on non est factum — Defence of non est factum disallowed in amended pleadings
• 2025-10-08 Romano et al. v. Engel et al., 2025 ONSC 5729 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Breach of contract — Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Summary judgment motion — Defendants failed to close on the agreed date due to inability to sell their own property — Plaintiffs sought damages for price differential and carrying costs — Did the Defendants' failure to close constitute a breach of contract? — Breach of contract established where purchaser fails to close and seller mitigates damages through reasonable resale efforts
  Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Rule 20.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Plaintiffs sought summary judgment for breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Defendants argued genuine issues for trial existed, including imbalance of bargaining power and bad faith — Is summary judgment appropriate in this case? — Summary judgment granted where no genuine issue requiring trial exists and evidence permits fair and just determination
  Sale — Real estate transactions — Damages for breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Plaintiffs claimed price differential, carrying costs, and legal fees — Defendants argued damages were excessive, unforeseeable, and remote — Were the Plaintiffs entitled to damages, and if so, what was the quantum? — Damages awarded for price differential and reasonable carrying costs; remote claims for lost investment interest denied
  Contracts — Forfeiture of deposit — Real estate transactions — Defendants paid $50,000.00 deposit under Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Plaintiffs sought declaration of forfeiture due to Defendants' breach — Should the deposit be forfeited to the Plaintiffs? — Deposit forfeited as security for performance of contract; credited against damages awarded
• 2025-10-07 Bowlby v. Oliver, 2025 ONSC 5669 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support — Standing under Family Law Act — Definition of "parent" — Whether the Olivers demonstrated a settled intention to treat Alex as their child — Application for child support dismissed for lack of standing — Section 33(2) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3
  Civil procedure — Litigation guardians — Appointment of litigation guardians for minors — Compliance with Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Jurisdictional error in appointing private individuals as litigation guardians without meeting procedural requirements — Rule 7.02 and Rule 7.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure
  Family — Mootness — Attainment of age of majority — Whether appeals and cross-appeals should be dismissed as moot — Retroactive child support claim preserved — Implications for costs between parties — Section 31 of the Family Law Act
  Family — Costs — Costs arising from original application and appeals — Dismissal of application for lack of standing — Jurisdictional error in appointing litigation guardians — Costs to be determined between the parties — Rule 7.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-10-09 Wais v. Coachman Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 5595 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Insurance — Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) — Interpretation of "insured person" — Appellant involved in a motor vehicle accident argued he was an "insured person" under the SABS despite no active insurance policy — Tribunal found appellant did not meet the definition of "insured person" under s. 3(1) of the SABS — Did the Tribunal err in law in its interpretation of "insured person"? — Tribunal's interpretation upheld as correct
  Insurance — Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund — Recourse to the Fund — Appellant argued he had recourse to the Fund as a payor of last resort — Tribunal found appellant failed to exhaust recourse against other insurers as required under s. 268(2)1(iv) of the Insurance Act — Was the Tribunal correct in denying recourse to the Fund? — Tribunal's decision upheld
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Tribunal's process — Appellant alleged procedural unfairness due to page limits on submissions, adjudicator expertise, and failure to review its own decision — Tribunal's procedural rulings found to be within its discretion — Did the Tribunal breach procedural fairness? — No breach of procedural fairness found
• 2025-10-09 Nissan v. Jaglal, 2025 ONSC 5713 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential tenancy — Scope of rental unit — Tenants alleged that the basement was included in the lease of a single-family home — Landlord and Tenant Board found tenants were aware the basement was excluded before moving in — Did the Board err in concluding the basement was not part of the tenancy? — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 29 — Board’s findings upheld as reasonable
  Contracts — Interpretation — Contra proferentem principle — Tenant argued lease was ambiguous and should have been interpreted in their favour — Contra proferentem principle not raised before the Board — Does the principle apply to the interpretation of residential leases under the Residential Tenancies Act? — Board’s mandate includes considering the real substance of transactions — Contra proferentem principle held inapplicable
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Scope of appellate review — Court’s jurisdiction limited to questions of law under section 210 of the Residential Tenancies Act — Tenant disputed factual findings regarding the inclusion of the basement in the lease — Can the court review the Board’s factual findings? — Court held it lacked jurisdiction to interfere with factual findings
  Statutory interpretation — Residential Tenancies Act — Section 29 allegations — Tenants alleged landlord illegally entered the unit, interfered with enjoyment, and harassed them — Board found tenants accepted the unit without the basement and landlord did not violate section 29 — Did the Board err in its application of section 29? — Board’s decision upheld as consistent with statutory provisions
  Civil procedure — Costs — Successful party entitlement — Tenant unsuccessful in appeal of Board’s decision — Landlord awarded $1,500 in costs — Should costs be awarded to the landlord? — Court found costs reasonable and consistent with standard practice
• 2025-10-09 Olague v. Nigro, 2025 ONSC 5744 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Eviction — Stay of eviction — Tenant failed to comply with court directions to pay rent and arrears as a condition of the stay — Landlords sought to lift the stay of eviction — Should the stay of eviction be lifted due to the tenant's non-compliance? — Governing rule: Stay of eviction may be lifted if the tenant fails to meet conditions imposed by the court
  Property — Eviction — Rental arrears — Tenant failed to pay rent and arrears as directed by the court — Landlords sought to enforce eviction — Should the tenant's failure to pay rent justify lifting the stay of eviction? — Governing rule: Non-payment of rent and arrears as directed by the court justifies eviction
  Civil procedure — Appeals — Dismissal for delay — Tenant failed to file appeal materials and did not indicate intent to pursue the appeal within the court's timeline — Should the tenant's appeal be dismissed for failure to comply with procedural requirements? — Governing rule: Appeals may be dismissed for delay or failure to comply with court directions
• 2025-10-08 Mashin v. Spiteri, 2025 ONSC 5733 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Frivolous and vexatious proceedings — Dismissal under Rule 2.1.02 — Moving party sought leave to appeal and stay of interlocutory decision — Court dismissed proceedings as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process — Does the proceeding meet the high threshold for dismissal under Rule 2.1.02? — Rule 2.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to dismiss proceedings in the clearest of cases
  Evidence — Leave to appeal — Legal thresholds — Moving party’s grounds for leave to appeal and stay of interlocutory decision lacked merit — No hope of meeting the test for leave to appeal or interlocutory stay — Did the moving party’s submissions satisfy the legal test for leave to appeal? — Test for leave to appeal and interlocutory stay not met
  Property — Collateral attack — Abuse of process — New action seeking to relitigate issues decided in prior summary judgment — Moving party’s new action deemed an impermissible collateral attack — Was the new action an abuse of process and collateral attack on prior decisions? — New action dismissed as an abuse of process and collateral attack on prior summary judgment
• 2025-10-06 Hutton v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 5297 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Law Society proceedings — Capacity determinations — Indefinite suspension — Appellant found incapacitated under s. 38(1) of the Law Society Act — Did the Hearing Division err in its findings regarding the appellant's capacity and impose an appropriate sanction? — Framework for assessing capacity and professional misconduct under the Law Society Act
  Evidence — Expert evidence — Psychiatric assessment — Appellant diagnosed with delusional disorder by forensic psychiatrist — Expert evidence admitted without objection at the Merits Hearing — Did the Hearing Division err in admitting the expert opinion evidence? — Governing principles for admissibility of expert evidence in administrative proceedings
  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Failure to consider Charter values — Appellant argued that the Hearing Division failed to protect Charter values, including freedom of expression and procedural fairness — Did the Hearing Division err in failing to consider Charter values? — Requirement to raise Charter arguments at the appropriate stage of proceedings
  Civil procedure — Summoning witnesses — Relevance and materiality of evidence — Appellant's motion to summon a witness dismissed for lack of evidentiary basis — Did the Hearing Division err in dismissing the motion? — Test for summoning witnesses in administrative proceedings
  Civil procedure — Fresh evidence — Motion to admit fresh evidence dismissed — Proposed evidence found unlikely to affect the outcome of the Merits Decision — Did the Hearing Division err in dismissing the motion for fresh evidence? — Test for admitting fresh evidence in administrative appeals
  Professional responsibility — Lawyer capacity — Indefinite suspension — Appellant's conduct found to compromise the integrity of the justice system — Psychiatric evidence relied upon to determine incapacity — Was the indefinite suspension appropriate? — Standards for professional responsibility and public protection in Law Society proceedings