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

• 2025-08-18 DiBlasi v. DiBlasi, 2025 ONSC 4763 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Costs — Partial success — Wife partially successful in determining valuation date and extending limitation period — Husband acted in bad faith, misrepresented marital status, and failed to make Offers to Settle — Should the wife be awarded costs, and if so, in what amount? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, ss. 18, 24
  Family — Offers to Settle — Reasonableness — Wife made five Offers to Settle, none of which were as favourable as the trial outcome — Husband made no Offers to Settle — Does the husband's failure to make Offers to Settle and his unreasonable conduct impact the costs award? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, ss. 18, 24
  Family — Bad faith — Husband acted in bad faith by knowingly misrepresenting facts and prolonging litigation — Court found husband's conduct unreasonable and awarded costs to the wife — Should bad faith conduct result in a costs award on a full or partial recovery basis? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, s. 24(10)
  Civil procedure — Costs — Proportionality — Court considered proportionality and reasonableness in awarding $100,000 in costs to the wife — Should the court apply proportionality principles when assessing costs in family law litigation? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, s. 24(14)
• 2025-08-15 ROBERT R. NG v. HAO JI TANG, formerly known as JOSEPH HOKAI TANG, 2025 ONSC 4740 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Enforcement of judgments — Alias writ of seizure and sale — Notice of garnishment — Plaintiff sought leave to issue an alias writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment in the name of the Defendant and his aliases — Should the Court grant leave to issue these enforcement tools? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 60.07(2), 60.07(10), 60.08(2)
  Civil procedure — Ex parte motions — Enforcement of judgments — Plaintiff brought an ex parte motion to issue an alias writ of seizure and sale and a notice of garnishment — Defendant had a history of evasion and fraudulent behaviour — Is it appropriate to proceed without notice to the Defendant? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 37.07(2), 19.02(3)
  Civil procedure — Delay in enforcement — Evidentiary threshold — Plaintiff delayed enforcement of judgment due to Defendant's evasion and use of aliases — Has the Plaintiff met the evidentiary threshold to justify the delay and demonstrate no waiver or acquiescence? — Low evidentiary bar for leave to issue writs — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 60.07(2), 60.08(2)
  Civil procedure — Alias writs and garnishment — Defendant's aliases — Prevention of enforcement frustration — Plaintiff sought to include Defendant's aliases in the alias writ of seizure and sale and notice of garnishment — Should the alias writ and garnishment include the Defendant's aliases to prevent frustration of enforcement? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, rr. 60.07(10), 2.03
• 2025-08-15 Torres v. Parsons et al., 2025 ONSC 4593 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Ownership and proceeds of sale — Partition and sale — Dispute over ownership and distribution of proceeds from the sale of a jointly occupied property — Applicant held 99% title, Respondents held 1% — Whether Respondents entitled to a greater share of proceeds — No enforceable agreement or unjust enrichment found — Proceeds distributed according to title — Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4.
  Contracts — Agreements regarding property ownership — Alleged oral agreements prior to and after property purchase — Whether enforceable agreements existed regarding ownership and proceeds of sale — No meeting of minds or essential terms established — Agreements contingent on future events (marriage) that did not occur — Bawitko Investments Ltd. v. Kernels Popcorn Ltd. principles applied.
  Obligations — Unjust enrichment — Corresponding deprivation — Respondents claimed unjust enrichment due to mortgage payments and household contributions — No deprivation found as Respondents’ expenses were consistent with prior rental costs — No enrichment as Applicant bore significant financial burden, including down payment and property taxes — Moore v. Sweet test applied.
  Property — Proprietary estoppel — Claim of reliance on representations regarding property ownership — Respondents alleged detrimental reliance on Applicant’s representations — No evidence of detriment or unconscionable conduct by Applicant — Doctrine of proprietary estoppel not applicable — Schwark v. Cutting principles applied.
• 2025-08-15 Monteith & Sutherland v Novex Insurance, 2025 ONSC 4697 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Coverage — Land surveying services — Applicant sought indemnification for settlement of a claim arising from deficient land surveying work — Does the subject matter of the Halton Claim fall within the policy’s coverage? — Governing principles of insurance contract interpretation applied — Policy language unambiguous — Claim found to fall within coverage
  Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Policy periods — Notice of claim — Applicant received notice of claim during one policy period but notified insurer during a subsequent period — In which policy period does the Halton Claim fall? — Policy language interpreted to determine applicable period — Claim deemed to fall in the period when the applicant first received notice
  Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Duty to co-operate — Breach of duty — Respondent alleged applicant failed to co-operate in the defence of the claim — Did the applicant breach its duty to co-operate sufficient to vitiate coverage? — Substantial breach required to vitiate coverage — No substantial breach found — No evidence of prejudice to the insurer
• 2025-08-15 City of Mississauga v. PSCC No. 1136 et al, 2025 ONSC 4711 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Municipalities — Nuisance Gathering By-law — Public safety — Interim statutory injunction — Interim quia timet injunction — Large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza — Public safety risks from overcrowding — Enforcement of municipal by-laws — Should the court grant injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c. 25, s. 440 — Courts may grant injunctive relief to restrain by-law contraventions in the public interest
  Statutory interpretation — Municipal Act, 2001 — Interim statutory injunction — Past contraventions of municipal by-laws — Ongoing violations — Can injunctive relief be granted against corporate respondents based on past contraventions of the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Breach of by-law must be ongoing to support injunctive relief — Limited discretion to deny injunctions in exceptional circumstances
  Statutory interpretation — Quia timet injunction — Future contraventions of municipal by-laws — Public safety risks — Should the court grant a quia timet injunction to prevent future contraventions of the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Test for interlocutory injunctions under RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) — Courts may grant quia timet injunctions to address imminent harm
  Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Freedom of association — Peaceful assembly — Public safety — Interim injunctions limiting Charter rights — Does the balance of convenience justify limiting Charter rights to enforce municipal by-laws? — Charter rights are not absolute and must be balanced against public safety concerns — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(d)

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-08-18 First Walden Holdings Inc. v. Fenton, 2025 ONSC 4355 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Business associations — Oppression remedy — Section 248 of the Business Corporations Act — Appellants sought issuance of shares or fair value of shares in PowerNorth — Application judge awarded financial compensation instead of shares — Did the application judge err in declining to order issuance of shares or payment of fair value? — Broad discretion of courts under section 248 to fashion remedies — Remedy upheld as appropriate and entitled to deference.
  Obligations — Reasonable expectations — Oppression remedy — Appellants argued their reasonable expectation was to receive 45 percent of PowerNorth's shares — Non-Binding Term Sheet contemplated share issuance but was incomplete — Did the application judge err in failing to consider reasonable expectations? — Reasonable expectations considered in light of incomplete agreements and parties' conduct — No error found.
  Contracts — Non-Binding Term Sheet — Binding agreement — Appellants argued that the Non-Binding Term Sheet became enforceable through performance — Respondents refused to finalize transaction documents — Did the Non-Binding Term Sheet create binding obligations? — Non-Binding Term Sheet explicitly stated it was not binding — No waiver of condition to finalize transaction documents — No binding agreement found.
  Civil procedure — Standard of review — Oppression remedy — Appellate court's role in reviewing findings of fact and remedies under section 248 of the OBCA — Correctness standard for legal errors — Palpable and overriding error standard for factual findings and mixed questions of fact and law — Application judge's findings and remedy entitled to deference.
• 2025-08-15 Franklin v. Law Enforcement Agency, 2025 ONSC 4732 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Dismissal of complaint — Applicant sought judicial review of LECA’s decision to dismiss her complaint as frivolous — LECA determined the complaint lacked substance, was speculative, and had no air of reality — Did LECA act reasonably in dismissing the complaint? — Standard of review for administrative decisions — Reasonableness of LECA’s decision under the Community Safety and Policing Act, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sch. 1
  Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Abuse of process — Applicant’s judicial review application dismissed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Court found the application to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process — Should the judicial review application be dismissed under Rule 2.1? — Application of Rule 2.1 in “clearest of cases” — Lochner v. Ontario Civilian Police Commission, 2020 ONCA 720
  Statutory interpretation — Community Safety and Policing Act — Frivolous complaints — LECA dismissed the applicant’s complaint under s. 158(1)(d)(i) of the Community Safety and Policing Act — Complaint deemed speculative, lacking in substance, and duplicative of prior complaints — Did LECA properly interpret and apply s. 158(1)(d)(i)? — Statutory framework for determining frivolous complaints
  Evidence — Submissions by self-represented applicant — Applicant alleged identity theft, harassment, and misconduct by a police officer — Submissions included allegations of threats, fraud, and abuse — Do the applicant’s submissions provide sufficient grounds to challenge LECA’s decision or the application of Rule 2.1? — Test for sufficiency of evidence in judicial review applications
• 2025-08-15 Edusei v. Philips, 2025 ONSC 4723 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Jurisdiction — Application for judicial review seeking compensatory and punitive damages — Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to award damages in judicial review proceedings — Does the application fall outside the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2(1) — Ling v. Justice of the Peace Review Council, 2021 ONSC 1182
  Statutory interpretation — Judicial Review Procedure Act — Scope of relief available — Applicant sought damages in judicial review application — Divisional Court’s jurisdiction limited to remedies under section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act — Does seeking damages in judicial review constitute an abuse of process? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2(1)
  Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Abuse of process — Application dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 — Applicant failed to address jurisdictional issues or provide sufficient details of decisions being challenged — Does the application meet the threshold for dismissal under Rule 2.1.01? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 2.1.01 — Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100
  Evidence — Sufficiency of pleadings — Applicant failed to identify specific decisions or provide dates and details of alleged misconduct — Application dismissed for lack of clarity and failure to meet procedural requirements — Does the absence of specific evidence render the application deficient? — Wang v. Canada, 2025 ONSC 4261
• 2025-08-14 McCready v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2025 ONSC 4696 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Landlord and Tenant Board — Extension of time to appeal — Tenant sought to appeal Board's decision terminating tenancy due to arrears — Whether justice of the case required granting an extension of time — Test for extension of time includes bona fide intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice to responding party, and merits of appeal — Lack of merit sufficient to deny extension — Enbridge Gas Distribution v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131 applied
  Civil procedure — Extension of time — Tenant filed appeal materials 2.5 weeks late due to medical treatment and family bereavement — Landlord conceded no prejudice caused by delay — Whether tenant met test for extension of time — Bona fide intention to appeal and acceptable explanation for delay established — Lack of merit in appeal sufficient to deny extension — Enbridge Gas Distribution v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131 applied
  Lease — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Subsection 83(6) — Tenant argued Board failed to consider landlord's obligation to negotiate during COVID-19 pandemic — Board considered history of arrears and multiple breached repayment agreements — Board not required to consider broader pandemic impacts — No error of law found — Jackson v. Capobianco, 2017 ONSC 3324 applied
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Bias — Tenant alleged unconscious bias by Board due to disability — Board provided detailed reasons for decision, including substantial arrears and history of breached agreements — No factual basis for bias claim — Procedural fairness not breached as tenant participated in hearing and did not request accommodations at the time — High threshold for bias not met
• 2025-08-13 Ilic v. Canadore College, 2025 ONSC 4611 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Academic decisions — Procedural fairness — Applicant challenged the College's decision to refuse completion of a Respiratory Therapy Program — Did the College act unreasonably or breach procedural fairness in making the decision? — Standard of review of reasonableness applied — Deference to academic decisions of public colleges unless manifest unfairness or unreasonableness is demonstrated
  Health — Education — Academic programs — Clinical placements — Applicant failed to meet clinical competencies in neonatal and pediatric rotations — Did the College fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the applicant's disabilities under its policies and the Human Rights Code? — College's decision upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Internal academic appeals — Applicant alleged unfairness in the College's refusal to accept an appeal of the decision to withdraw him from the program — Did the College breach procedural fairness by failing to accept the applicant's appeal? — College's enforcement of appeal deadlines upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Civil procedure — Judicial review — Delay — Extension of time — Applicant filed for judicial review seven months after the decision, beyond the statutory 30-day period — Should the court extend the time for judicial review? — Court declined to address the issue as the application was dismissed on the merits