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

• 2026-03-25 Stewart v. The Ontario Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, 2026 ONSC 1831 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Security for costs — Non-resident plaintiffs — Rule 56.01(1)(a) engaged where plaintiffs ordinarily resident outside Ontario — Whether an order for security for costs should issue — Onus shifts to plaintiffs to show order unjust per Coastline Corporation Ltd. v. Canaccord — Rule 56.01(1)(e) not applied — Broad discretion exercised — Security for costs ordered
  Procedure — Security for costs — Merits threshold — Did the Plaintiffs establish a “good chance of success” to avoid security for costs? — Guidance from Zeitoun v. Economical Insurance Group — Conflicting accounts assessed, lack of corroboration and expert evidence noted — Claims not shown plainly likely to succeed — Merits threshold not met — Security for costs maintained
  Procedure — Security for costs — Quantum and staging — What quantum and staging of security is just given parties’ conduct? — Defendants’ late Proposed Bill of Costs criticised, Plaintiffs’ asset non-disclosure considered — Five discovery days, mediation and five-day trial contemplated — Amount reduced and ordered in stages tied to litigation steps — Security set at $50,000, staged
  Procedure — Costs — Motion costs — What partial indemnity costs are reasonable following a security for costs motion? — Parties’ success and conduct weighed, power imbalance submission considered — Hours and partial indemnity figures reviewed — Limited success and fairness drive reduction — Fixed amount ordered payable within set time — Costs of motion fixed at $5,000
• 2026-03-25 Ladouceur v. Dupuis et. al., 2026 ONSC 1834 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Summary judgment — Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether summary judgment should be granted because there is no genuine issue requiring a trial — Robust application endorsed in Hryniak v. Mauldin — Plaintiff must put best foot forwards and cannot rest on pleadings — Defendants demonstrate essential elements missing — Summary judgment granted, action dismissed
  Civil liability — Malicious prosecution and negligent investigation — Termination in favour — Did the criminal proceeding terminate in favour of the plaintiff as a threshold requirement? — Withdrawal following diversion agreement with parenting courses is not a favourable termination — No admission there was no basis for charges — Claims cannot proceed absent threshold — Claims dismissed
  Civil liability — Police liability — Reasonable and probable grounds — Whether malice or negligent investigation was shown — Police acted on statements from complainant and witnesses and had reasonable and probable grounds — No evidence of malice or breach of investigative standards — Lying or exaggerating to police insufficient to ground liability — Claims against police and complainant dismissed
  Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Unlawful detention — Charter, s. 9 — Does the Charter claim lie against a private complainant and was a Charter breach made out? — Charter applies to government actors, not to the private defendant — Police conduct reasonable on the evidence, no s. 9 violation established — Charter claim dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Private defendant — Whether claim against complainant should be dismissed summarily — No sufficient evidence of intentional infliction of mental suffering or malicious prosecution by complainant — He did not initiate or investigate prosecution and no malice shown — Trial would serve no purpose — Summary judgment granted against complainant, action dismissed
• 2026-03-25 Banner v. Austin, 2026 ONSC 1838 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Pleadings — Striking defence — Motion to strike for disruptive conduct at examinations for discovery, breaches of court orders, failures in production, undertakings and refusals — Whether the collective pattern warrants striking the amended statement of defence — Balance between orderly processing and merits-based adjudication considered, citing Aslezova v. Khanine — Proportional and just response found lacking — Motion to strike dismissed
  Procedure — Discovery — Spoliation — Duty to preserve relevant documents — Whether loss of access to Alibra’s QuickBooks data after subscription ended constitutes spoliation — No applicable test or specific evidentiary foundation provided, see Doust v. Schatz — References to existing documents during discovery noted — Potential spoliation not established
  Procedure — Discovery — Undertakings and refusals — Failure to meet timetable for undertakings and numerous refusals — Whether non-compliance justifies striking the amended statement of defence — Delay reasonably explained by later discoveries and counsel retirement — Propriety of answers and refusals deferred to alternative relief — Striking based on refusals and undertakings rejected — Motion to strike dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Motions — Partial indemnity costs where defendants successful on motion to strike — Amount sought too high in all the circumstances — Fair and reasonable all-inclusive figure fixed with extended time for payment — Costs fixed at $7,500 payable by plaintiffs to defendants in the cause — Costs awarded
• 2026-03-25 Sanayhie v. Durham Regional Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 1841 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Costs — Determination of successful party — Whether the Plaintiff was the successful party despite divided success — Overall success assessed having exceeded the Plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer — Defence “line in the sand” approach considered — Proportionality and access to justice addressed under Rule 57.01 — Plaintiff held successful — Costs awarded to Plaintiff
  Procedure — Costs — Rule 49.10 consequences — Application of Rule 49.10 where judgment more favourable than Plaintiff’s offer — Entitlement to partial indemnity to offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter — Defence offers irrelevant to scale under Rule 49.10 — No basis to deny substantial indemnity from offer date — Substantial indemnity from date of offer ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Reductions under Rule 57.01 — Whether divided success and use of two senior counsel warrant reductions — 20 percent reduction applied for issues lost and dismissal against one Defendant — Additional discount for two senior counsel to reflect reasonableness and proportionality — Other Rule 57.01 factors considered — Costs reduced in part
  Procedure — Costs — Disbursements for expert evidence — Should the Defendants pay for the Plaintiff’s expert where evidence addressed unsuccessful issues — Expert opinion not accepted on unlawful arrest and excessive force — Expert fees unreasonable to shift where discrete issues failed — Disbursement for report and attendance disallowed — Expert disbursement disallowed
• 2026-03-24 Moduflex Ltd. v. Isologe X Corp. O/A Isophit, 2026 ONSC 1788 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Default judgment — Rules of Civil Procedure — Do the materials provide a basis for a finding of liability on a default judgment motion? — Deemed admissions under r. 19.02 and affidavit evidence under r. 19.05 considered — Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin test applied — Pleaded facts and affidavit establish liability for unpaid invoices — Default judgment granted
  Contracts — Breach — Damages — What damages is the plaintiff entitled to for breach of contract? — Loss of bargain principle engaged — Entitlement to be placed as if contract performed — Payment of outstanding invoices for manufactured equipment confirmed — Damages awarded
  Procedure — Interest — Courts of Justice Act — What pre-judgment and post-judgment interest should be awarded? — Contractual rate declined in favour of Ontario rate — Pre-judgment interest fixed at 5.3 percent from date of last invoice — Post-judgment interest set at 4 percent — Pre- and post-judgment interest fixed
  Procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity — What costs should be awarded on a partial indemnity basis? — Rates and time reviewed and found fair and reasonable — Costs within the reasonable contemplation of the defendant — Costs quantified inclusive of disbursements — Costs awarded on a partial indemnity basis

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-03-25 Greenmark Builders Inc. v. Tarion Warranty Corporation, 2026 ONSC 1769 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Solicitors of record — Removal from record — Breakdown of solicitor/client relationship — Whether an order removing the solicitors of record should issue — Prejudice to parties considered — Motion heard in writing, no responding materials — Draft order amended by the court — Registrar authorised to issue order — No order as to costs — Order removing solicitors granted
  Procedure — Solicitors of record — Withdrawal — Whether removal from the record should be granted where the solicitor/client relationship has broken down — Absence of prejudice to respondent and applicant — No imminent hearing date — Draft order issued with amendments — Motion granted
  Procedure — Adjournment — Request by applicant — Whether adjournment should be granted because no new counsel retained and file not obtained — Issues not bearing on entitlement to removal — Prior opportunity to seek representation or transfer — Last‑minute email insufficient — Adjournment refused
  Procedure — Motions in writing — Service and participation — Whether the court can proceed in writing without participation where service is established and no responding materials are filed — Motion materials served well before hearing — Recitals amended to reflect non‑attendance — Order issued
  Procedure — Costs — Unopposed motion — Whether costs should be ordered where only a last‑minute email was sent — Moving solicitors not put to material additional expense — No objection by respondent — No order as to costs
• 2026-03-24 Centurion Building Corporation v. The Shaw Festival, 2026 ONSC 1808 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Standing — Judicial review — Private and public interest standing — Does the applicant have private or public interest standing to seek judicial review — Tests from Finlay and Downtown Eastside applied — Genuine interest and reasonable and effective means assessed — Insufficient direct interest and discretion not exercised — Application for public interest standing refused — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Planning approvals under Ontario Heritage Act and Planning Act — Were the demolition and planning approvals reasonable despite absence of quantified preservation costs — Vavilov reasonableness applied to municipal decision making without formal reasons — Heritage committee consultation, HIAs and accessibility needs considered — Decisions transparent, intelligible and justified — Application dismissed
  Municipalities — Zoning and land use — Legal non-conforming use and parking — Was continuation of the parking exemption reasonable — Staff recommendation on parking credits under Town Zoning By-Law accepted — Intensification versus change in kind considered with Saint‑Romuald — No authority that demolition extinguishes non-conforming use cited — Exemption within range of acceptable outcomes — Application dismissed
  Municipalities — Municipal governance — Conflict of interest — Should the Lord Mayor’s alleged conflict affect the validity of the decisions — Ex officio role on fundraising Board of Governors raised under MCIA — No bad faith or remedy to set aside decisions sought — Court declines to decide MCIA issue on judicial review — Separate MCIA process noted — Application dismissed
• 2026-03-24 Cervantes v. Pizza Nova Take Out Ltd., 2026 ONSC 713 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Labour and employment — Employment Standards Act — Common employer — Whether Franchisees are “common employers” under ESA s. 4(1) — Associated or related activities or businesses analysed — Franchisees’ relationships with Franchisor distinguished from relationships with each other — Novelty of submission acknowledged but unsupported by pleadings — No error in motion judge’s common employer analysis — Appeal dismissed on this ground
  Procedure — Class actions — Conspiracy certification — Whether certification can proceed on allegation that all Defendants conspired together — Requirement to plead agreement or common design applied — Overt acts pleaded concerned only Franchisor’s arrangements with each Franchisee — Acquiescence insufficient to found conspiracy — Certification of conspiracy between all Defendants set aside — Appeal allowed in part on conspiracy
  Labour and employment — Employee status — Common issues — Whether employment status can be determined as a common issue — Sagaz factors and OLRB cases reviewed — Core commonality found despite variations at margins — Reweighing of evidence declined on deference — No palpable and overriding error shown — Certification of common issue upheld
  Procedure — Class actions — Negligence claim — Whether negligence for pure economic loss can be certified alongside breach of contract — Maple Leaf Foods framework considered — Contractual regulation militates against duty yet employment context distinguished — Not plain and obvious claim would fail — No determination that negligence will succeed at trial — Certification of negligence claim upheld
• 2026-03-24 Goovaerts (Litigation Guardian of) v. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, 2026 ONSC 1687 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Attendant care benefits — 1996 SABS, s. 16(2) — Did the adjudicator apply the correct legal test for reasonable and necessary ACBs? — Purpose of ACBs and Form 1 methodology considered — Focus must be on needs arising from catastrophic impairment, not actual care received — Failure to correctly apply s. 16(2) established — Decision set aside and new hearing ordered
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Vavilov framework — Did the LAT unreasonably equate needs with actual care and fail to grapple with supervisory care and prior LAT authority? — Internally coherent reasoning and legal constraints assessed — Departure from established practices unexplained — Central evidence on emergency response not addressed — Decision unreasonable — Decision set aside and new hearing ordered
  Administrative law — Appeals — Standards of review — Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, ss. 11(1), 11(6) — Concurrent statutory appeal on questions of law and judicial review on reasonableness — Correctness for legal errors, reasonableness for overall outcome — Court may substitute its view on law and review merits for justification — Appeal allowed and judicial review granted
  Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Incurred expense — 1996 SABS — Do ACBs require services to be received or paid, and may retroactive Form 1 claims be advanced? — Pre‑2010 definition of “incurred” confirmed — Successive and retroactive Form 1s permissible — Morrissey, Monks and Pucci applied — Needs may exist without services delivered — Decision set aside and new hearing ordered
• 2026-03-24 Turlo et al. v. 2455655 Ontario Corporation, 2026 ONSC 1785 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Intervention — Rule 13.01 — Whether proposed intervenor has an interest in the subject matter — Adverse findings about integrity as sufficient interest — Application of Beardon v. Lee and Butty v. Butty — Interest not in disposition of order but reputational impact — Interest in subject matter found
  Procedure — Intervention — Leave to appeal — Should discretion be exercised to permit intervention on a leave motion — Rarity of intervener status on leave motions cited, McFarlane and ING Canada — Meridian warning against lurking in the shadows — No fresh evidence, limited utility, ongoing related litigation — Intervention refused, motion dismissed, request to intervene on appeal adjourned