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

• 2025-10-29 R. v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 4875 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Fraud over $5,000 — Uttering a forged document — Sentencing — Proportionality — Denunciation — Deterrence — Offenders convicted of fraud and forgery related to mandatory entry-level training for Class A licences — What is the appropriate sentence for the offenders? — Principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence applied under section 718 of the Criminal Code
  Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Concurrent versus consecutive sentences — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Offences arising from the same fraudulent scheme — Should the sentences be served concurrently or consecutively? — Sentences imposed concurrently as offences were part of the same transaction and protected the same legal interests
  Transportation — Forfeiture — Offence-related property — Fraud involving truck driver training — Forfeiture of three trucks used in the commission of fraud — Should a forfeiture order be issued under section 490.1 of the Criminal Code? — Forfeiture order issued as trucks were integral to the fraudulent scheme and proportional to the offence
  Criminal infractions — Conditional sentences — Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Are the conditions for a conditional sentence met? — Conditional sentence imposed with strict house arrest and community service, meeting the requirements of section 742.1 and addressing denunciation and deterrence
• 2025-10-29 R. v. Jean, 2025 ONSC 6069 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Mistrial application — Jury speculation — Witness safety concerns — Accused alleged that the jury might infer the accused was the source of a witness's fear — Should a mistrial be declared to address potential prejudice? — Governing principles for mistrial applications — Remedy of last resort — Trial judge's discretion to assess trial fairness — R. v. Toutissani, R. v. Donnelly applied
  Evidence — Prejudicial testimony — Witness safety concerns — Witness expressed fear for personal and family safety during testimony — Did the trial judge's mid-trial instruction and final jury charge sufficiently address potential prejudice? — Jury instructed to disregard evidence of witness's fear — Jurors presumed to follow instructions — R. v. Khill, R. v. Barton applied
  Evidence — Limiting instructions — Trial fairness — Accused argued that limiting instructions were insufficient to remedy prejudice caused by witness testimony — Did the trial judge err in dismissing the mistrial application? — Mid-trial instruction and final charge addressed moral and reasoning prejudice — R. v. Handy, R. v. Pizzardi distinguished
• 2025-10-29 2246733 (2010) Ontario Ltd. v. Gandhi et al, 2025 ONSC 6088 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Procedural directions — Document production — Litigation timetable — Dispute over sufficiency of affidavits of documents — Should deficiencies in document production be addressed before or after discoveries? — Court directed a process to address deficiencies before discoveries if necessary — Balancing efficiency and fairness in litigation management
  Evidence — Document production — Affidavits of documents — Defendants’ obligation to produce complete affidavits — Whether incomplete affidavits justify early intervention before discoveries — Court emphasized compliance with procedural rules and timeliness in document production
  Civil procedure — Scope of court orders — Application of orders to specific defendants — Whether an order requiring maintenance of funds in trust accounts should apply to all defendants or only to specific groups — Court clarified that the order applied only to the Mayfield Defendants, not the Gandhi Defendants, based on the motion record and parties’ consent
  Statutory interpretation — Interpretation of court orders — Meaning of “maintain” in the context of trust accounts — Whether the order required defendants to deposit additional funds or only to preserve existing funds — Court held that “maintain” did not require new deposits, only preservation of existing funds — Context and transcript of prior proceedings supported this interpretation
• 2025-10-28 Dreamz Holdings Ltd. v. 2456914 Ontario Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 5892 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Professional responsibility — Solicitor negligence — Duty of care — Mortgage transaction — Law firm and associate lawyer retained by client who committed fraud — Did the defendants owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, and was that duty breached? — Solicitors must exercise diligence when certifying corporate status, authority, and identity — Narrow duty of care owed to third parties — No breach of duty found in absence of expert evidence
  Evidence — Standard of care — Professional negligence — Mortgage transaction — Is expert evidence required to establish the standard of care for a solicitor conducting a mortgage transaction? — Expert evidence is necessary unless the conduct is egregious or non-technical — No genuine issue for trial without expert evidence
  Torts — Damages — Evidence of damages — Mortgage default — Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of property value, equity, or recovery efforts — Did the plaintiff fail to establish damages sufficient to raise a genuine issue for trial? — No evidence of shortfall or damages provided — Claim dismissed
  Insurance — Title insurance — Loss of coverage — Mortgage transaction — Did the loss of title insurance coverage raise a genuine issue for trial? — Title insurance coverage unavailable due to disbursement of funds — Plaintiff’s lawyer responsible for ensuring valid title insurance — No genuine issue for trial regarding title insurance
  Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Successful party — Should costs be awarded to the successful party, and if so, in what amount? — Costs awarded to the defendants reduced due to late concession on duty of care — Costs fixed at $16,950
• 2025-10-28 Sud v. Sud, 2025 ONSC 5979 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs — Reasonableness and proportionality — Applicant sought costs of $113,826.40 on a substantial indemnity basis — Respondent argued costs were excessive and disproportionate — Should costs be awarded to the Applicant, and if so, in what amount? — Modern costs rules under Family Law Rules, Rule 2(2), and Rule 24 — Costs fixed at $99,000 based on reasonableness and proportionality
  Family — Costs — Financial hardship — Respondent argued inability to pay costs due to financial hardship and litigation outcomes — Does financial hardship justify a reduction or elimination of the costs award? — Court considered principles from Beaulieu v. Diotte and Balsmeier v. Balsmeier — Financial means relevant but not a shield against liability — Costs not reduced
  Family — Enforcement of costs as support — Applicant sought enforcement of costs award as support under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act — Should the costs award be enforceable as support? — Costs deemed inextricably linked to support claims — Entire costs award enforceable as support by the Family Responsibility Office

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2025-10-29 The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs v. Minister of Public Affairs and Business Delivery and Procurement, 2025 ONSC 5477 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Director’s decision under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Whether the Director’s interpretation of the Act was reasonable in concluding that the University of Windsor was not engaging in business — Framework for assessing reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
  Rights and freedoms — Discrimination — Academic boycotts — University agreements with student groups — Provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities — Whether the agreements violated the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Purpose of the Act to prevent discrimination in business relationships — Interpretation of “engaging in business” under the Act
  Statutory interpretation — Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Section 4(1)3(ii) — Whether the provision in the agreements constituted a discriminatory business practice — Interpretation of “refuse or fail to employ or promote” under the Act — Whether the provision impacted employment or promotion of Israeli academics or University faculty — Contextual and purposive approach to statutory interpretation
  Statutory interpretation — Public academic institutions — Whether the University of Windsor’s actions fell within the scope of “engaging in business” under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Application of Beauchamp v. North Central Predators AAA Hockey Assn., 2005 — Preponderant purpose test for determining business activity
• 2025-10-28 Taylor v. Freeman, 2025 ONSC 3760 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Mareva injunction — Legal test — Appellants appealed an order requiring $4,000,000 from property sale proceeds to be paid into court — Did the motion judge err in applying the general test for interlocutory injunctions instead of the stricter Mareva injunction test? — Test for Mareva injunction includes strong prima facie case, risk of asset dissipation, and undertaking as to damages — Motion judge’s failure to apply correct test rendered the order invalid
  Lease — Commercial lease — Joint venture — Dispute over characterization of agreement between property owners and business operators — Respondents claimed joint venture agreement; appellants argued simple lease — Did the respondents establish a strong prima facie case for their claim? — Lack of documentary evidence undermined respondents’ claim of financial contributions and joint venture agreement
  Property — Rule 45.02 — Specific fund — Respondents sought payment into court under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Did the motion judge err in granting relief under Rule 45.02? — Rule 45.02 applies only to claims involving a specific fund or constructive trust — Respondents’ claim for damages did not meet this requirement
  Civil procedure — Delay — Interlocutory injunction — Obligation to advance proceedings — Respondents failed to advance their case after obtaining a Mareva injunction — Should the motion judge have addressed the delay in proceedings? — Courts emphasize the need for prompt advancement of cases where interlocutory relief is granted
• 2025-10-27 Halkiw v. Lavin, 2025 ONSC 6048 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Termination of tenancy — Good faith — Landlord served N13 Notice to terminate tenancy for conversion to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board found landlord acted in bad faith, motivated by tenant’s prior success in obtaining Residential Tenancies Act protections — Whether landlord’s intent to convert unit was genuine — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(a)
  Lease — Permits for conversion — Landlord sought to terminate tenancy to convert unit to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board required evidence of permits or exemption from permits under section 73(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether Board erred in requiring proof of permits for a commercially zoned unit — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(b)
  Lease — Utilities — Procedural fairness — Landlord claimed unpaid utility charges under tenancy agreement — Landlord and Tenant Board failed to address utility claim in its decision — Whether failure to rule on utilities breached procedural fairness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194, Rule 61.08
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Consistency of tribunal decisions — Landlord argued Landlord and Tenant Board failed to follow findings from prior decision regarding unit’s commercial zoning and live/work use — Whether Board’s decision was inconsistent with prior ruling — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33
• 2025-10-27 Ashley Manor Housing Corporation v. Malcolm, 2025 ONSC 6056 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Lease — Residential Tenancies Act — Timeliness of appeal — Tenant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision to the Divisional Court — Appeal filed outside the 30-day limit under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether the appeal was out of time — Section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act governs the time limit for appeals to the Divisional Court
  Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Repeated review requests — Tenant filed multiple requests to review the same LTB order, contrary to Rule 26.18 of the LTB Rules of Procedure — Whether repeated review requests constituted an abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of frivolous or vexatious proceedings
  Civil procedure — Self-represented litigants — Procedural compliance — Tenant argued unfamiliarity with court rules as a self-represented litigant — Whether self-represented status entitled the Tenant to leniency in procedural compliance — Self-represented litigants must comply with procedural rules despite lack of legal training
  Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Tenant's appeal dismissed as untimely — Court outlined factors for granting an extension of time, including intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, merits of the appeal, and justice of the case — Rule 37.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for extension of time
• 2025-10-24 Gaya v Gaya, 2025 ONSC 5842 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Civil procedure — Costs — Leave to appeal — Motion for leave to appeal a costs order dismissed — No submissions on costs filed by any party — Should leave to appeal a costs order be granted? — Governing principles for granting leave to appeal costs orders applied — Leave to appeal denied as no error in principle or misapprehension of facts was demonstrated
  Civil procedure — Costs — No costs ordered — Motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed — Should costs be awarded in the motion for leave to appeal? — No submissions on costs filed by the parties — No costs ordered in the motion