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

• 2025-10-01 Bayliss v. Burnham, 2025 ONSC 5376 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Estates and trusts — Testamentary validity — Purported will of a status Indian — Absence of original signature — Whether the purported will was duly executed under the Indian Act, Succession Law Reform Act, or common law — Ministerial discretion under s. 45(2) of the Indian Act — Requirements for a valid will under the Indian Act — Purported will declared invalid due to lack of signature and knowledge of contents
  Indigenous peoples — Wills and estates — Jurisdiction of provincial courts — Ministerial consent under s. 44(1) of the Indian Act — Whether the Ontario Superior Court of Justice can apply common law principles to determine the validity of a will made by a status Indian — Comprehensive testamentary code under the Indian Act — Common law principles found applicable alongside the Indian Act
  Evidence — Suspicious circumstances — Purported will of a status Indian — Lack of evidence regarding preparation, execution, and testator’s knowledge of contents — Forensic document examination inconclusive on signature authenticity — Whether suspicious circumstances shifted the burden of proof to the respondent — Respondent failed to prove testator’s knowledge and approval of the will’s contents
  Evidence — Formal validity — Purported will of a status Indian — Absence of original signature — Whether a photocopy or electronic signature satisfies the requirements under s. 45(2) of the Indian Act — Ministerial guidelines on electronic signatures not binding — Purported will invalidated due to lack of compliance with statutory requirements and insufficient evidence of execution
• 2025-10-01 Labourers’ International Union of North America, Loc 183 v Vox Construction Inc., 2025 ONSC 5531 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Contempt of court — Enforcement of court orders — Responding party repeatedly failed to attend examinations in aid of execution despite court orders — Should the responding party be held in contempt of court for non-compliance? — Test for civil contempt from Carey v Laiken applied — Contempt found based on clear order, actual knowledge, and intentional disobedience
  Labour and employment — Collective agreements — Employer failed to pay wages and benefits owed under a collective agreement — Arbitrator's award converted to court order — Employer's sole officer and director evaded compliance — Should the employer's officer be compelled to comply with the court order? — Labour Relations Act, 1995, SO 1995, c 1, Sched A, s 48(19)
  Civil procedure — Penalties for contempt — Incarceration as a last resort — Responding party's repeated non-compliance with court orders — What is the appropriate penalty for civil contempt? — 21-day incarceration ordered to compel compliance and deter future disobedience — Proportionality, deterrence, and denunciation considered
  Civil procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity costs awarded to creditor — Creditor incurred significant costs attempting to serve contemnor and enforce compliance — Should the creditor be awarded costs for the penalty phase? — Costs fixed at $15,750 as reasonable and proportional under Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43, s 131
• 2025-10-01 Foch et al v. Sharon Gun Club, 2025 ONSC 5541 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs — Scale of costs — Appropriate scale of costs awarded to the successful party — Respondents sought substantial indemnity costs due to applicants' conduct — Applicants argued for partial indemnity costs — What is the appropriate scale of costs in light of the parties' conduct and litigation history? — Rule 57.01 factors applied, including proportionality, indemnity, and reasonableness
  Civil procedure — Costs — Elevated costs — Substantial indemnity costs awarded — Applicants breached settlement agreements and enforcement orders — Applicants pursued unmeritorious claims unsupported by evidence — Should substantial indemnity costs be awarded for reprehensible conduct? — Elevated costs warranted only for sanctionable behaviour or offers under Rule 57.01
  Civil procedure — Costs — Proportionality — Reasonableness — Costs must be fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the issues and outcome — Applicants argued proportionality to reduce costs — Should proportionality limit costs where claims were unmeritorious and prolonged litigation? — Proportionality balanced against other Rule 57.01 factors
  Estates and trusts — Costs liability — Personal liability for costs — Applicant acted as litigation guardian and estate trustee — Applicant personally liable for costs incurred before co-applicant's death — Joint and several liability for costs incurred after death — To what extent is the applicant personally liable for costs? — Rule 7 applied to determine personal responsibility
• 2025-09-30 Nootchtai v. Nahwegahbow Corbiere Genoodmagejig, Barristers and Solicitors, 2025 ONSC 5540 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Evidence — Admissibility of expert evidence — Retired judge providing expert opinion on complexity, risks, and results in a contingency fee dispute — Whether expert evidence is necessary to assist the court — Whether the expert possesses the requisite expertise — Threshold requirements for admissibility under White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 — Expert report ruled inadmissible due to lack of necessity and expertise
  Civil procedure — Reply evidence — Third affidavit of respondent challenged as improper reply evidence and scandalous — Whether the affidavit introduces new facts or improperly splits the case — Court reserves ruling on admissibility until relevance and importance of the evidence are determined
• 2025-09-29 Cousins v. Healey, 2025 ONSC 5512 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Parental alienation — Reversal of primary residence — Decision-making responsibility — Allegations of alienation by the respondent — Applicant seeking 90-day placement of children in their care — Best interests of the children — Should the court order a change in residence to address alienation? — Framework for determining best interests under the Divorce Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. 3 (2nd Supp.)
  Family — Declaratory judgment — Parental alienation — Estrangement — Respondent's role in children's rejection of the applicant — Applicant seeking a declaration of responsibility for estrangement — Can the court issue a declaration to address the respondent's actions? — Principles governing declaratory relief under the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43
  Family — Children's views and preferences — Weight of preferences — Older children rejecting contact with the applicant — Influence of alienation on children's preferences — Should the court prioritize children's autonomy or their best interests? — Balancing children's maturity with the need for reconciliation therapy
  Civil procedure — Non-compliance with court orders — Reunification therapy — Parenting time — Respondent's repeated breaches of court orders — Sanctions under Family Law Rule 1(8) — Should the court impose penalties for non-compliance? — Rule 1(8) authorizing broad remedies to address failures to comply with court orders
  Civil procedure — Monetary penalties — Sanctions for non-compliance — Respondent's failure to comply with parenting time and therapy orders — Applicant seeking monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) — Are monetary penalties appropriate for repeated breaches of court orders? — Framework for imposing penalties under Family Law Rules

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-10-01 Beyan v. IMH Pool XX LP, 2025 ONSC 5392 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Standard of review — Appeal of procedural decisions by the Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) — Did the LTB deny procedural fairness by granting an ex parte request to expedite the hearing or by denying an in-person hearing? — Standard of correctness applied to procedural fairness issues — Tribunals entitled to deference on procedural decisions unless an error in principle is demonstrated
  Lease — Procedural fairness — Expedited hearing — Landlord's request to shorten time granted ex parte by the LTB — Tenant argued lack of notice and opportunity to respond — Did the LTB follow its procedural rules and consider relevant factors under Rule 16? — LTB found no denial of procedural fairness — Tribunal's discretion upheld
  Lease — Hearing format — Written versus in-person hearing — Tenants requested in-person hearing citing language barriers and fairness concerns — LTB denied request, citing Updated Practice Direction on Hearing Formats and lack of Human Rights Code accommodation request — Did the LTB err in denying the request? — Tribunal's discretion upheld as no significant prejudice demonstrated
  Civil procedure — Tribunal discretion — Procedural rules — LTB's application of procedural rules under the Residential Tenancies Act and its Rules of Procedure — Tribunal's discretion to determine hearing format and timing — Did the LTB err in applying its procedural rules? — LTB's decisions upheld as compliant with statutory mandate and procedural fairness principles
• 2025-10-01 Zacon Limited v. Provincial Doors Inc., 2025 ONSC 361 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: amount — writing — payable — motion — leave
• 2025-09-30 Sorrentino v. Certas Home and Auto Insurance Company, 2025 ONSC 5518 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Disputed insurance benefits — Appellate court overturning LAT decision — Appellant awarded $365,257.00 for costs of disputed plan — Should the appellate court overturn the LAT decision and award the appellant the disputed funds without remitting the matter back? — Exceptional circumstances justifying immediate relief to the appellant due to age and urgent financial need
  Administrative law — Deference to tribunal — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Appellate court prioritizing appellant’s immediate need for funds over deference to LAT process — Should the appellate court prioritize the appellant’s immediate need for funds over deference to the LAT’s process? — Deference to tribunal outweighed by urgency and fairness considerations
  Civil procedure — Stay of decision pending appeal — Appellate court clarifying that its decision is not stayed pending further appeal unless expressly ordered by the Ontario Court of Appeal — Should the appellate court clarify the immediate enforceability of its decision? — Decision enforceable immediately absent a stay order from the Ontario Court of Appeal
• 2025-09-23 Malek v Galam, 2025 ONSC 5418 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: costs — motion — leave — thirty — inclusive
• 2025-09-23 Desloges Law Group Professional Corporation v Anqi, 2025 ONSC 5419 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: unreported — thirty — inclusive — writing — payable