Une série de jugements de la Cour supérieure de justice, pour la plupart rendus après le 1er octobre 2004, sont affichés sur le site Web de CanLII. Ce site n’est pas une source exhaustive de jugements de la Cour supérieure de justice. La version officielle des motifs de jugement est le document original signé ou l’endossement manuscrit dans le dossier de la Cour. S’il y a une question concernant le contenu d’un jugement, le document original dans le dossier de la Cour l’emporte.

Les jugements ne sont disponibles que dans la langue dans laquelle ils ont été rédigés.

On peut obtenir des copies des jugements de la Cour supérieure de justice en contactant les greffes respectifs où l’affaire a été entendue. Des frais de photocopie sont requis. On peut consulter ces jugements en s’abonnant à un service comme LexisNexis® Quicklaw^MC, et WestlawNextMD^MD Canada.

Abonnez-vous au fil de nouvelles RSS afin de consulter les décisions de la Cour supérieure de justice

• Cour supérieure de justice – Décisions récentes
• Cour supérieure de justice – Cour divisionnaire – Décisions récentes

Cour supérieure de justice – Décisions récentes

• 2025-07-07 Magil Construction Ontario Inc. v JBelli Holdings Inc., 2025 ONSC 4018 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Construction — Claims for lien — Certificates of action — Section 44 of the Construction Act — Moving parties sought to vacate claims for lien and certificates of action upon posting security — Should the court grant leave to bring urgent motions under section 44? — Threshold for urgency not met — Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30
  Statutory interpretation — Urgency under the Construction Act — Moving parties argued urgency due to refinancing requirements — Claims for lien registered in 2020, with delays in bringing motions — Does urgency under section 44 of the Construction Act include delays caused by the moving parties? — Threshold for urgency as per Notice to the Profession and Parties
  Professional responsibility — Counsel conduct — Misapprehension of urgency — Moving parties and counsel failed to act in a timely manner — Does delay caused by counsel constitute legitimate urgency? — Court criticized improper attempts to "jump the queue" — Notice to the Profession and Parties
  Civil procedure — Written motions — Conditions imposed for adjudication — Court denied leave for urgent motions but allowed written adjudication with conditions — Should the court impose conditions to mitigate prejudice to the moving parties? — Conditions included revised materials, affidavit explaining delay, and no costs sought
• 2025-07-04 Malleum Real Estate Mgt. Corp. et al. v. Donut Monster Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 3997 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease — Breach of lease — Repudiation — Tenant's obligations — Landlord's obligations — Tenant failed to take occupancy and repudiated the Lease — Landlord entitled to damages for lost rent and diminution in property value — Did the Tenant breach or repudiate the Lease? — Landlord acted in good faith and complied with obligations — Governing principles from Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly, Douglas and Co. Ltd
  Lease — Misrepresentation — Counterclaim — Allegations of misrepresentation by Landlord — Tenant alleged Landlord failed to complete improvements by March 1, 2020 — No evidence of misrepresentation or fundamental breach by Landlord — Did the Landlord breach or repudiate the Lease or make misrepresentations? — Lease interpretation governed by Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp
  Contracts — Interpretation — Commercial lease — Commencement date and Fixturing Period — Tenant argued Lease commencement was conditional on completion of Landlord's improvements — Lease unambiguous and not conditional — What is the proper interpretation of the Lease? — Contractual interpretation principles from Sattva and Weyerhaeuser applied
  Civil procedure — Limitations Act — Counterclaim barred — Tenant's Counterclaim filed more than two years after alleged breach — Are the claims in the Counterclaim statute-barred? — Claims barred under Limitations Act, 2002, s. 4
  Lease — Damages — Lost rent — Diminution in property value — Landlord entitled to damages for lost rent and reduced market value of property — Appropriate measure of damages includes mitigation costs and interest — What is the appropriate measure of damages for the Landlord? — Damages quantified under principles from Morguard Corporation v. 6753060 Canada Inc
• 2025-07-04 Nagy et al. v. Guay, 2025 ONSC 3935 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Torts — Private nuisance — Substantial and unreasonable interference — Water runoff — Applicants alleged that respondent's curb wall caused flooding and damage to their property — Whether the installation of the curb wall constituted a private nuisance — Court found no substantial or unreasonable interference — Factors considered: severity, neighbourhood character, utility of conduct, and sensitivity — Applicants failed to prove causation or significant harm — Antrim Truck Centre Ltd. v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 SCC 13 applied
  Torts — Injunctions — Mandatory injunction — Applicants sought removal of respondent's curb wall as a remedy for alleged nuisance and by-law violations — Whether a mandatory injunction was warranted — Court dismissed the application, finding no nuisance or by-law breach — Injunction not granted in absence of substantial interference or legal violation
  Municipalities — By-laws — Compliance — City of Ottawa By-law 2003-447 and By-law 2018-164 (repealed by By-law 2024-448) — Applicants alleged respondent's curb wall violated municipal by-laws — Respondent obtained necessary permits and complied with city requirements — No evidence of ongoing violations or infractions — Court found respondent in compliance with municipal by-laws
• 2025-07-04 Winning v. 2483852 Ontario Inc., 2025 ONSC 3953 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Assignment agreements — Breach of contract — Timeliness of performance — Plaintiff failed to seek Vendor's consent "forthwith" as required under the Assignment Agreement — Did the Plaintiff's delay in seeking consent constitute a breach entitling the Defendants to terminate the agreement? — Time is of the essence in real estate transactions — Breach of contractual timing requirements justified termination
  Sale — Real estate — Assignment agreements — Anticipatory breach — Defendants refused to execute Vendor Consent Documents containing terms outside the Assignment Agreement — Did the Defendants anticipatorily breach the Assignment Agreement? — Defendants were not required to accept unreasonable terms inconsistent with the original agreement
  Obligations — Duty to cooperate — Assignment agreements — Defendants' refusal to sign Vendor Consent Documents — Did the Defendants breach their duty to cooperate under the Assignment Agreement? — Duty to cooperate does not require a party to prejudice its own legal rights or accept unreasonable terms
  Sale — Real estate — Return of deposit — Condition precedent — Vendor's consent to Assignment Agreement not obtained — Are the Defendants entitled to the return of their $70,000 deposit? — Vendor consent was a true condition precedent — Assignment Agreement became null and void when consent was not obtained
  Sale — Mitigation of losses — Plaintiff's failure to terminate Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Vendor — Could the Plaintiff have mitigated her losses by terminating the agreement? — Plaintiff could have recovered her deposit from the Vendor but chose to extend the agreement instead
• 2025-07-04 Brajak v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2025 ONSC 3989 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Abuse of process — Application dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether the application was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Court emphasized the importance of rigorous enforcement of Rule 2.1.01 to protect judicial resources and access to justice — Rule 2.1.01, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194
  Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Interpretation of Rule 2.1.01 — Whether the rule applies to dismiss proceedings that are frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 not intended for "close calls" but for proceedings clearly devoid of merit — Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100 applied
  Estates and trusts — Declaratory relief — Jurisdiction — Applicant sought declarations regarding private beneficial ownership of an estate/trust and status as a "free private ecclesiastical person" — Whether the Superior Court of Justice has jurisdiction to grant such relief — Court held it lacked jurisdiction to declare the applicant a "free private ecclesiastical person."
  Constitution — Justiciability — Reliance on constitutional and statutory provisions — Applicant relied on constitutional documents and statutes, including the Statute of Frauds and the Courts of Justice Act, to support claims — Whether such reliance established a justiciable claim — Court found submissions nonsensical and devoid of legal merit

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-07-02 Douris v. Ontario (Law Enforcement Complaints Agency), 2025 ONSC 3504 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: 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
  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
  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
  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
  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
• 2025-07-02 Sistermans v. CAA Insurance Co., 2025 ONSC 3809 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: 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
  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
  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
  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 Akman v. Sonnet Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 3924 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs on appeal — Small Claims Court — Appeal allowed — Whether costs order at first instance survives appeal — General principle that costs orders below are set aside when an appeal is allowed — Costs awarded to successful appellant — St. Jean v. Cheung applied — Hunt v. TD Securities Inc. applied
  Insurance — Duty to defend — Landlord and Tenant Board hearing — Appeal of Small Claims Court decision — Whether insurer required to pay costs awarded at first instance after appeal success — Costs order set aside upon appeal success — General principles governing costs prevail over regulatory limits
  Statutory interpretation — Small Claims Court — Costs awards below $3,500 — O. Reg. 626/00, s. 2 — Whether regulatory limit prohibits appeal of costs award — Regulatory provision does not override general principles governing costs on appeal — Riddell v. Carefree Moving Inc. considered
• 2025-06-30 Kou v. Karmah, 2025 ONSC 3815 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Torts — Rear-end collisions — Reverse onus — Negligence — Liability apportionment — Whether trial judge erred in failing to apply the reverse onus presumption of negligence on the rear driver in a rear-end collision — Whether the trial judge improperly apportioned liability contrary to established jurisprudence — Reverse onus in rear-end collisions requires rear driver to rebut presumption of negligence — Beaumont v. Ruddy, [1932] O.R. 441 (C.A.); Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110
  Civil procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Palpable and overriding error — Whether trial judge made a clear and obvious factual error by conflating the evidence of the parties — Whether the error was determinative to the outcome of the case — Standard of review for factual errors is palpable and overriding error; for legal errors, correctness standard applies
• 2025-06-27 Benabed v. Levasseur, 2025 ONSC 3692 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: leave — inclusive — time — extension — writing