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

• 2026-02-09 Vassair v. Ehrhardt, 2026 ONSC 762 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Variation — Material change — Gordon v. Goertz applied — Whether escalating parental conflict and inconsistent compliance with a domestic contract constitute a substantial, continuing, child-focused change — Scope of variation limited to medical and dietary issues — Prior final order otherwise preserved — Material change found — Limited variation ordered
  Family — Best interests — Medical decision-making — Divorce Act and Children’s Law Reform Act — Court’s role in medical disputes — Deference to qualified medical professionals and objective evidence — Avoiding orders that entrench conflict — Structure imposed to promote stability, safety, and effective care — Best-interests framework applied — Structured decision-making ordered
  Family — Enforcement — Domestic contract — Whether precautionary gluten-free and dairy-free diet is binding absent diagnosis — Provision remains binding and must be followed — Reliability concerns addressed through court-ordered dietary and symptom tracking with information sharing to clinicians — Tracking necessary, proportionate, and child-focused — Enforcement and tracking ordered
  Health — Care coordination — Referrals — Should referrals proceed through the child’s family doctor while maintaining a tertiary-care wait list? — Macgregor v. Stone referenced — Physician-led coordination preferred for diagnosis, testing, and sequencing of care — McMaster Children’s Hospital wait list preserved pending medical advice — Referral through family doctor ordered and wait list maintained
• 2026-02-06 Hussain v. Reid’s Heritage Homes Ltd., 2026 ONSC 710 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Contracts — Deposits — Relief from forfeiture — Courts of Justice Act, s. 98 — Whether deposit is disproportionate or retention unconscionable — Redstone Enterprises Ltd. v. Simple Technology Inc. applied — Market downturn, re‑listing costs and carrying costs considered — Deposit intended to incentivise closing — Forfeiture not dependent on proof of damages — Application dismissed
  Contracts — Remedies — Rescission — Availability limited to duress, undue influence, illegality, fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or frustration — Inamdar v. Zhang summarised — No inequality of bargaining power or seller misconduct — Disability unknown to seller at formation — Experienced purchaser represented by agent — Rescission unavailable — Application dismissed
  Contracts — Termination — Repudiation and acceptance — Failure to close as fundamental breach — Seller accepted repudiation and terminated APS — Consequences of termination save for damages assessment — Keneric Tractor Sales Ltd. v. Langille referenced — Deposit may be retained despite unquantified damages — Termination affirmed
  Procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Successful party presumptively entitled — Ability to pay considered in fixing amount — Reasonable bill of costs reduced — Costs fixed at $5,000 all‑inclusive — Costs awarded
• 2026-02-06 Niagara South Condominium Corporation No. 12 v. Locke, 2026 ONSC 728 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Property — Condominium — Alterations to common elements — Condominium Act, 1998, s. 98 — Whether board may condition approval on an indemnity agreement — Refusal to enter indemnity agreement for a video doorbell — Board approval authority and conditions affirmed — Breach of s. 98 found — Declaration issued and order to negotiate indemnity agreement within set timeline — Declaration of breach and order to enter indemnity agreement
  Property — Condominium — Entry and inspection — Condominium Act, 1998, s. 19 — Did owners breach s. 19 by refusing access to inspect washer and dryer installation? — Reasonable notice entry right confirmed — Prior refusal constituting breach — Inspection by condominium and retained professionals ordered — Request to authorise removal of appliances found premature and rejected — Declaration of breach and inspection order granted
  Procedure — Civil procedure — Conversion of application to action — Conflicting affidavits and inconclusive video recordings — Whether viva voce evidence required — Balance of unresolved issues converted to an action — Pleading timelines set under Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 — Application converted to action for remaining claims — Application converted to action
  Procedure — Costs — Full indemnity — Successful condominium corporation — Whether full indemnity costs payable for matters decided — Costs entitlement recognised on a full indemnity basis — Fixed quantum determined for resolved issues only — Payment timetable specified — Costs awarded on a full indemnity basis fixed at a set amount
• 2026-02-06 Talwar v. Grand River Hospital, 2026 ONSC 744 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Reservation to appellate court — Whether costs before the motion judge should be reserved to the Court of Appeal — Contrary to established practice and impractical — Costs are decided at each step — Request without merit and denied — No order for costs in the Div Ct proceeding maintained — Request to reserve costs denied
  Procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity — Are claimed partial indemnity costs fair, reasonable and proportionate — Guidance in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council applied — Proportionality to amounts at stake and litigation complexity considered — About 60% of actually incurred costs within normal range — Costs fixed at $45,000 plus HST and $2,500 plus HST
  Procedure — Costs — Case management and adjournment — Are costs for case management events and the adjournment recoverable — Costs not awarded for case management events absent direction — No costs awarded for costs thrown away on the adjournment in January 2024 — Bills of costs reviewed and adjusted — Case management and adjournment costs excluded
  Procedure — Costs — Self-represented litigants — Does self-represented status justify a reduction in partial indemnity costs — Partial indemnity costs are an indemnity, not a sanction — No reduction because the plaintiff was self-represented — Sincerity of belief not a basis to reduce fair and reasonable costs — No reduction for self-represented status
• 2026-02-06 The Canada Trust Company et al. v. 1290976 Ontario Ltd. et al., 2026 ONSC 750 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Motions — Representation and case management — Overview of interlocutory relief granted and refused — Court dispenses with r. 15.01(1) under r. 2.03 and grants leave under r. 15.01(2) — Actions ordered to be tried together on consent — Amendment and validation of service ordered — Defendants’ motion, including security for costs and adjournment, dismissed — Orders made
  Procedure — Rules of Civil Procedure — Dispensing with compliance — May the Court dispense with r. 15.01(1) under r. 2.03 to permit representation of a trustee acting in a representative capacity? — Scarangella and Selkirk considered — Interests of justice engaged given bare trust structure and access to justice — Requirement under r. 15.01(1) dispensed with
  Procedure — Corporate parties — Leave for non‑lawyer representation — Should leave be granted under r. 15.01(2) for a corporation to be represented by a non‑lawyer? — Canada Trust a bare trustee with no financial interest — Powells solely responsible to retain and indemnify counsel — GlycoBioSciences principles addressed — Leave granted
  Procedure — Costs and conditions — Security for costs — Whether to impose conditions, including security for costs, upon granting leave — Non‑party cost risk addressed by indemnity to trustee — No evidentiary basis on the record — Conditions unnecessary and inappropriate — Security for costs refused
  Procedure — Motions — Adjournment and service — Should the Plaintiff’s Motion be adjourned pending service on encumbrancers under r. 37.07? — Record did not justify adjournment — Consent to trial together and leave decision rendered — Request to adjourn the Plaintiff’s Motion dismissed

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-02-05 Jackson v. College of Nurses, 2026 ONSC 697 (CanLII)
  Key Words: College of Nurses — Discipline — Appeals — Fresh evidence
• 2026-02-04 Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2026 ONSC 608 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Judicial review — Entitlement to costs where Respondent prevailed on a preliminary issue but failed to communicate position in a timely manner — Whether late confirmation not to proceed with a public vote justified costs — Conduct of parties and timing of communications considered — Most costs incurred before preliminary objection — Costs to Applicant — Costs awarded
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Prematurity and mootness — Education Act, s. 218.3(11) — Whether there was a final decision for review where in-camera vote not brought to public vote — Parties agree no decision under the Education Act and Board will not proceed publicly — Characterisation as prematurity versus mootness noted — Order on consent issued
• 2026-02-04 Browne v. Henley Crescent, 2026 ONSC 455 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Tribunal review — Gatekeeping for reconsideration — Did the Board exceed its review jurisdiction absent a serious error under Rule 26 and Interpretation Guideline 8? — Scope of s. 21.2 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act — Disagreement with outcome not a serious error — Review not an opportunity to re‑argue — Review improperly granted — Review decisions set aside
  Statutory interpretation — Remedial legislation — O. Reg. 516/06, s. 3(2) — Does s. 3(2) include the spouse as a tenant when the tenant vacates without prior termination notice? — Modern approach applied, Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 2(1) — Landlord knowledge not required — Protective purpose for spouses affirmed — Spousal tenancy recognised — Eviction orders set aside
  Lease and tenancy — Tenant status — Implied tenancy and real substance — Whether the appellant was a “tenant” under s. 2(1) RTA based on rent payments, long‑term occupancy, maintenance requests, landlord communications and records — s. 202 mandate to ascertain real substance — Broad, inclusive definition of tenant applied — Set Aside Decision reasonable and restored — Tenant status confirmed — Appeal allowed
• 2026-02-04 Paragon Protection Ltd. v. Tamstu-Harjon Holdings of Canada, 2026 ONSC 575 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Business associations — Oppression remedy — Standing under OBCA — Ontario Business Corporations Act, s. 245(c) — Whether appellants are “proper persons” to bring oppression against an individual director — Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Hordo applied to potential creditors and minority‑shareholder analogy — Legitimate expectations linked to breach of contract and litigation insufficient — Complainant status under s. 245(c) not established — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Evidentiary record — Housen v. Nikolaisen standard of review — Did the motion judge err by proceeding without full productions and by declining an adverse inference? — Discovery record extensive and disputed productions predating respondent’s involvement — No palpable and overriding error — Adverse inference not warranted — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Partial summary judgment — Malik v. Attia — Whether partial summary judgment was appropriate on the discrete standing issue — Screening through Commercial List case management, efficiency and inconsistency risks weighed — Limited role of individual respondent considered — High threshold met for partial summary judgment — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Reasons — Characterization of issues — Whether mischaracterization of claims and allegations amounts to reversible error — Reasons fairly referenced core dispute over consultancy agreement and pleaded oppression particulars — No obligation to recite every allegation — No reversible error shown — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-02-04 Ozdemir v. Ozdemir, 2026 ONSC 577 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Language rights — Interpreter — Whether incorrect translation violated Charter s. 14 — Concurrent and simultaneous interpretation provided — No transcript or translator evidence filed — R. v. Tran distinguished on record and methodology — Onus to prove translation errors not met — No breach of s. 7 or s. 14 — Appeal dismissed
  Family — Decision-making responsibility and parenting time — Domestic contracts — Whether separation and cohabitation agreements should govern parenting — Family Law Act, s. 56 allows court to disregard parenting terms — Best interests assessed under Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24 — Evidence supported sole decision-making and primary residence with Respondent — Agreements not followed — Appeal dismissed
  Family — Parenting schedule — Clarity of order — Is “liberal and generous parenting time” with specified weekends unclear? — Detailed weekend and summer schedule set out — Trial judge rejected undefined parenting time as not in children’s best interests — Schedule sufficiently precise and workable — Ground of appeal dismissed — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Self-represented litigants — Procedural fairness — Did the court fail to ensure fairness for a self-represented litigant with language barriers? — Judge explained law and best interests test, provided CLRA s. 24 and guide, ensured interpreters — Principles in Pintea v. Johns applied, limits on assistance respected — No breach of procedural fairness — Appeal dismissed