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

• 2026-07-22 County Towing Inc. v. Windsor Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 4234 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Statutory interpretation — Municipal by-laws — Procurement thresholds — Purchasing By-law 93-2012 — Whether RFT or RFP was required for towing contract — “Purchase Price” means amount payable by the City, not supplier revenue — Multi-year contract calculation clarified — Informal Quotation method permissible — No breach of by-law — Defendants’ motion granted and action dismissed
  Contracts — Tendering — Contract A duties — Fairness and good faith in procurement — Did the Board breach duties of openness, equal treatment and transparency? — Informal Quotation applied consistently — Questions answered to all suppliers — Lowest compliant bid accepted — No unequal treatment or bad faith — Contract A not breached — Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed
  Municipalities — Business licensing — Territorial application — Municipal Act, 2001, ss. 150, 151, 19 — Are tow operators based outside Windsor required to be licensed when towing partly within the City? — Business partly carried on within municipality captured — Health, safety and consumer protection objectives engaged — Licensing requirement valid — Declaratory relief refused
  Civil liability — Economic torts — Causing loss by unlawful means — Bram Enterprises v. A.I. Enterprises framework — Did police conduct supply “unlawful means” actionable by third parties? — Scene control, traffic safety and investigation justified — No actionable wrong to vehicle owners — Intention and causation not established — Unlawful means claim dismissed
• 2026-07-22 Rajbally v. TD Canada Trust, 2026 ONSC 4270 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Pleadings — Amendments — Leave to amend under Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 26.01 — Whether non-compensable prejudice arises from fundamentally different facts and long delay — Proposed pleading alleges false credit reporting and card suspension, replacing original TD VISA incident — Presumption of prejudice not rebutted — Motion to amend dismissed — Leave to amend refused
  Limitation periods — Amendments after expiry — Whether proposed amendments assert a new cause of action out of time — Alleged false reporting between 2012 and 2016 and suspension in 2016 — Discoverability not pleaded — Expiry constitutes non-compensable prejudice — 100997 Ontario Limited v. North Elgin Centre Inc., McFadden v. Psutka, Monster Snacks Inc. applied — Amendments time-barred
  Procedure — Trial procedure — Summonses — Rule 53.04 issuance of summonses to witness in simplified procedure — Whether basis established where no trial scheduled and record inadequate — Summary trial contemplated under r. 76.12 — Court not satisfied on the record to grant relief — Motion for issuance of summonses dismissed — Summonses refused
• 2026-07-22 Huang v. T&T Supermarket, 2026 ONSC 4268 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment and addition of parties — Rules 26.01 and 5.04(2) — Should leave be granted to amend and add individual defendants? — Test for reasonable cause of action and pleading compliance applied — Knight v. Imperial Tobacco and Plante standards referenced — Limitations issues intertwined with party addition — Motion dismissed
  Civil liability — Torts — Personal liability of employees — Do the pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action against employees? — Employee liability requires independent tortious acts or separate identity from employer — Kraik v. Ungar applied — Bald conclusory allegations not assumed true — No independent cause of action particularised — Leave to add individual employees refused
  Procedure — Pleadings — Particulars and material facts — Are the amendments supported by material facts and sufficient particulars under Rule 25.06? — Rule 21.01(1)(b) standard incorporated — Bald, conclusory statements insufficient per Das v. George Weston — Minimum disclosure threshold not met — Leave to amend refused
  Limitation periods — Discoverability — Addition of parties after expiry — Are claims against proposed defendants statute‑barred by the Limitations Act, 2002? — Two‑year presumptive discovery under s. 5 — Bar on adding parties after expiry under s. 21(1) — Higgins and Pepper considered, Grant Thornton test cited — Time‑barred allegations found — Motion to add parties dismissed
  Procedure — Party addition — Discretion under Rule 5.04(2) — Should the Court refuse addition for fairness and judicial efficiency? — Addition of multiple individual defendants would unduly complicate and delay the hearing — Prejudice and expanded discoveries considered — Discretion exercised to refuse party addition — Motion dismissed
• 2026-07-22 Mitchell v. Mitchell, 2026 ONSC 4291 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Support variation — Temporary stay pending motion to change — Divorce Act, s. 17 — Whether temporary, without prejudice relief should continue pending determination of variation — Interaction with Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 — Order of June 30, 2026 continued — Enforcement of arrears stayed — Partial interim relief maintained
  Procedure — Interlocutory relief — Stays of enforcement — Test from Clark v. Vanderhoeven and Nour v. Youssef as cited in Hardacre v. Family Responsibility Office — What is the proper scope of a temporary stay pending a motion to change? — Hardship addressed by arrears stay — Interim framework preserved — Temporary stay confined to arrears enforcement
  Family — Spousal support — Temporary variation — Whether a strong prima facie case justifies a prospective stay of spousal support — Alleged agreement to $900 monthly not established on the record — Threshold for variation not met under Divorce Act, s. 17 — No change to June 30, 2026 Order — Spousal support unchanged on interim basis
  Family — Child support — Post-secondary education — Whether Table child support should be adjusted based on residence during summer months — Child attending post-secondary education outside Canada — Onus on Respondent to establish strong prima facie case — Insufficient details to rebut Applicant’s evidence — No change to June 30, 2026 Order — Summer Table child support maintained
• 2026-07-21 Navaratnarajah v. FSB Group Ltd., 2026 ONSC 4246 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Motions — Costs of motion to vary costs order — Defendants sought substantial indemnity for the Variance Motion — Whether the conduct of the motion attracted criticism — Counsel for the law firm acted straightforwardly and professionally — Focus remained on earlier conduct in the action — All-inclusive costs fixed for the Variance Motion — Costs fixed at $30,000
  Procedure — Costs — Scale of costs — Whether substantial indemnity costs should be awarded — Threshold of reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct applied (Davies v. Clarington, Young v. Young) — Counsel’s conduct on the Variance Motion found proper and professional — No basis for solicitor-and-client chastisement — Substantial indemnity costs refused
  Procedure — Costs — Discretion — Costs are discretionary under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act — Parties’ positions ranged from $15,000 to $53,901 — No cross-examinations or voluminous evidence, but complex legal and jurisdictional arguments — Court set a mid-point using round numbers — All-inclusive amount ordered — Costs fixed at $30,000

Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court Recent Decisions

• 2026-07-23 Montford v. Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine et al, 2026 ONSC 4273 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative tribunals — Judicial review
  Human rights tribunals — Procedure
• 2026-07-22 Sarpong v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2026 ONSC 3525 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Whether the Director reasonably concluded that the Trespass to Property Act authorized the demand for identifying information and the detention — Failure to grapple with central arguments and relevant evidence — Application of Vavilov, R. v. Le, R. v. Grant, R. v. Mann, R. v. Virk, and O. Reg. 400/23 — Decision unreasonable — Matter remitted for redetermination
  Administrative law — Bias — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether the Director failed to address the applicant’s allegation of investigator bias — Test from Wewaykum applied — Cell phone recordings supporting bias allegations noted — Failure to respond to a key issue renders decision unreasonable — Remittal required for consideration of bias — Decision set aside in part — Matter remitted
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Disclosure — Whether non-disclosure of officers’ notes and memoranda rendered the process unfair — Low level of procedural fairness owed to complainants confirmed — Boua and Cozzi applied — No entitlement to investigative-stage disclosure under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 — Procedural unfairness claim rejected — Application dismissed on this ground
  Administrative law — Police conduct review — Code of Conduct — Whether it was unreasonable to find the officers’ language not “abusive” under s. 12(1) of O. Reg. 407/23 — Distinction between abusive and insulting, disrespectful, unprofessional language — Line drawn to exclude impugned remarks found reasonable — Finding within range of acceptable outcomes — Conclusion upheld
• 2026-07-22 Smith v. Japra, 2026 ONSC 4281 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Notice of hearing — Was procedural fairness breached where the LTB did not email a notice of hearing and the tenants credibly denied receipt? — SPPA, s. 6, time place and purpose requirements — LTB Rules 5.1 and 5.2 considered — Constructive notice rejected — Appeal allowed, orders set aside, matter remitted
  Administrative law — Tribunals — Residential Tenancies Act — Interpretation of RTA s. 209(2) phrase not reasonably able to participate — Abdalla v. Koirala applied, broad participation right — King-Winton, Timbercreek, Zalzman distinguished and followed — Correctness standard on question of law — Duty to provide reasonable notice emphasized — Appeal allowed, orders set aside, matter remitted
• 2026-07-21 Hyde v. VanMar Constructors Inc., 2026 ONSC 4182 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Case management review — Courts of Justice Act, s. 21(5) — Whether case management directions on transcripts and striking a 267‑page factum should be set aside — High deference to case management orders applied — Lynch v. Ross Wilson Holdings Ltd. cited — Directions ensured appeal readiness and complied with Rules — Review motion dismissed
  Procedure — Appeal perfection — Transcripts — Whether appellant must obtain and file complete trial transcripts — Certificates Respecting Evidence require transcripts — Failure to bring motion for relief noted — Time to serve and file proof of ordering full transcript extended to a new deadline — Non‑compliance may result in dismissal of appeal — Deadline extended
  Procedure — Case management — Future motions — Should further motions proceed without the case management judge’s direction — Triage and consistent case management emphasised — One case management judge directed going forward — No further motions unless the case management judge directs otherwise — Case management structure ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Are substantial indemnity costs warranted on an unsuccessful review motion — Proportionality principles in Boucher v. Public Accountants Council applied — Costs fixed and payable within thirty days — Review motion dismissed and costs awarded — Costs ordered
• 2026-07-20 Sparks v. Primmum Insurance Company, 2026 ONSC 3803 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Notice of refusal — SABS s. 54 requires written notice of the right to dispute a refusal — Whether notice must include reconsideration, appeal and judicial review steps with timelines and court contacts — Right to dispute is an application to the Tribunal under Insurance Act s. 280(2) — LAT decision upheld — Appeal and application for judicial review dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Regulatory interpretation — SABS s. 54 — Does s. 54 require advising every step of the reconsideration and appeal process — Smith v. Co‑operators General Insurance Co. considered — Scope of “right to dispute the refusal” limited to application to the Tribunal — No mandate to detail full appellate routes — Interpretation found reasonable — Appeal dismissed
  Limitation periods — Discoverability — SABS s. 56 — Was the “TWO YEAR LIMIT” warning misleading without discoverability or LATA s. 7 — Tomec v. Economical and The Personal v. Tagoe referenced on discoverability — Standard is clear time limits that govern the process, not perfection — Notice sufficient to trigger action — Application to the Tribunal out of time — Appeal and judicial review dismissed