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

• 2025-07-25 Robinson v. Htike, 2025 ONSC 4360 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Medical examinations — Trial fairness — Defendants sought additional medical examinations of the plaintiff by an orthopedic surgeon and a neurologist — Plaintiff argued the examinations were unnecessary and duplicative — Should the court order the plaintiff to undergo additional medical examinations? — Section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure empower courts to order such examinations where fairness requires it
  Evidence — Duplicative medical assessments — Defendants argued that additional medical examinations were necessary to address orthopedic and neurological issues not fully covered by prior assessments — Plaintiff contended that the requested examinations duplicated prior expert reports — Are the requested medical examinations duplicative? — Courts must ensure that examinations are not redundant and are necessary for trial fairness
  Health — Cancellation fees — Plaintiff missed a medical appointment due to severe chronic pain — Defendants sought reimbursement of a $3,000 cancellation fee — Should the plaintiff be required to pay the cancellation fee? — Court declined to order payment, citing the plaintiff’s catastrophic injuries and unpredictable pain levels
  Workplace health and safety — Costs of motion — Defendants were successful in their motion for additional medical examinations — Parties agreed that the successful party should be awarded $3,000 in costs — Should the plaintiff pay the defendants’ costs for the motion? — Court ordered the plaintiff to pay $3,000 in costs within 30 days
• 2025-07-25 Fisher v. Danilunas, 2025 ONSC 4359 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Estates and trusts — Guardianship — Recognition of foreign orders — Ontario court recognition of UK court order appointing deputies for an incapacitated person — Substitute Decisions Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 30 — Whether foreign guardianship orders can be enforced in Ontario — Framework for balancing autonomy and protection of vulnerable persons — Court recognized UK deputies’ authority to manage property in Ontario — Public policy considerations and procedural safeguards
  International law — Comity — Recognition of foreign court orders — UK court order appointing deputies for an incapacitated person — Real and substantial connection test — Whether foreign in rem orders can be enforced in Ontario — Application of Beals v. Saldanha and Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. — Court recognized foreign order based on procedural fairness and accountability under UK law
  Rights and freedoms — Autonomy — Vulnerable persons — Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 — Balancing individual autonomy and protection of vulnerable persons — Public policy concerns under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 — Whether recognition of foreign guardianship orders undermines autonomy — Court found UK process aligned with Ontario’s public policy and Charter values
  Property — Ancillary orders — Access to property in Ontario — Whether foreign deputies can access and manage funds in Ontario without full recognition of foreign order — Court rejected ancillary enforcement without recognition of UK order — Recognition required to authorize deputies to manage over $1.2 million in Ontario assets
  Constitution — Public policy — Enforcement of foreign in rem orders — Balancing competing values of autonomy and protection — Application of Pro Swing Inc. v. Elta Golf Inc. — Broader public policy considerations for in rem orders — Court recognized UK order as consistent with Canadian constitutional values and public policy
• 2025-07-24 River City Christian Reformed Church v. Singh et al., 2025 ONSC 4237 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Security for costs — Rule 56.01(1)(d) — Plaintiff, a not-for-profit corporation, alleged insufficient assets to pay costs — Defendants sought security for costs of $957,965.81 — Should the Plaintiff be required to post security for costs? — Rule 56.01(1)(d) allows discretion based on factors including impecuniosity and merits of the claim — Motion dismissed as Plaintiff demonstrated impecuniosity and claims were not plainly devoid of merit
  Evidence — Financial disclosure — Impecuniosity — Plaintiff resisted security for costs motion by asserting financial hardship — Did the Plaintiff provide sufficient financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity? — Plaintiff submitted T3010 Registered Charities Information Returns and evidence of declining donations — Full and frank disclosure of financial circumstances required — Court found disclosure sufficient to establish impecuniosity
  Professional responsibility — Solicitor-client relationship — Allegations of conflict of interest — Plaintiff alleged Defendant law firm acted for multiple parties in transaction without advising Plaintiff to seek independent legal advice — Did the Plaintiff’s claims against the law firm have merit? — Court found evidence of potential solicitor-client relationship and conflict of interest — Claims not plainly devoid of merit
• 2025-07-24 R. v. McLeod, et al., 2025 ONSC 4319 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Evidence — Sexual assault — Consent — Complainant’s evidence — Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to sexual activity with each accused? — Assessment of complainant’s words, actions, and demeanor before and during the incidents — Governing principles from R. v. Ewanchuk and R. v. G.F. applied to determine subjective consent
  Evidence — Consent vitiated by fear — Section 265(3) of the Criminal Code — Complainant alleged fear of harm caused her to comply with sexual activity — Did the complainant’s fear vitiate her consent? — Requirement for honestly held fear and its plausibility assessed — Governing principles from R. v. Ewanchuk applied
  Criminal procedure — Party liability — Aiding or abetting sexual assault — Section 21(1) of the Criminal Code — Did Michael McLeod aid or encourage others to commit sexual assault? — Analysis of text messages, group chat, and conduct in room 209 — Fault and conduct requirements for aiding or abetting considered
  Criminal procedure — Credibility and reliability — Assessing complainant’s evidence — Inconsistencies and memory gaps — Impact of alcohol consumption on reliability — Application of principles from R. v. Kruk and R. v. A.M. — Court’s approach to reconciling conflicting evidence and addressing gaps in memory
  Criminal procedure — Intoxication and reliability — Complainant’s intoxication — Effect on memory and ability to consent — Did intoxication impair the complainant’s capacity to consent or reliability of her evidence? — Governing principles from R. v. G.F. and R. v. Zock applied
• 2025-07-24 R. v. Beals, 2025 ONSC 4342 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Proportionality and parity — Defendant convicted of possession of fentanyl, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a loaded firearm — Guilty plea and mitigating factors considered — Aggravating factors include prior criminal record, firearm prohibition violation, and drug quantity — Appropriate sentence determined as 10 years, reduced to 7 years and 9 months after pre-sentence custody credit — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.2
  Rights and freedoms — Systemic racism — Anti-Black racism — Sentencing considerations — Defendant raised in Nova Scotia, experienced systemic and individual racism — Court considered the impact of systemic racism under Morris factors — Rehabilitation prioritized over individual deterrence — Judicial notice of systemic anti-Black racism in Canada — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 15
  Criminal infractions — Pre-sentence incarceration — Mitigating factors — Conditions at Central East Correctional Centre — Lockdowns, overcrowding, and unsanitary conditions — Judicial notice of harsh pre-sentence conditions — Duncan factors applied to reduce sentence — R. v. Duncan, 2016 ONCA 754
  Criminal procedure — Ancillary orders — DNA order, firearm prohibition, and forfeiture order imposed — Defendant did not oppose ancillary orders — Criminal Code, ss. 109, 490

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-07-25 Dennis v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, 2025 ONSC 4058 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: unreported — inclusive — writing — discretion — panel
• 2025-07-25 South Junction Triangle Grows Neighbourhood Association v. City of Toronto, 2025 ONSC 4070 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Ontario Land Tribunal — Leave to appeal — Motion for leave to appeal decision of Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed — Tribunal decision challenged by neighbourhood association — Should leave to appeal be granted? — Leave to appeal denied as no error of law or jurisdictional issue identified in Tribunal’s decision
  Municipalities — Ontario Land Tribunal — Leave to appeal — Neighbourhood association sought leave to appeal Tribunal decision involving municipal planning — Does the Tribunal’s decision warrant appellate review? — Tribunal decision upheld as no significant legal error or public interest issue identified
  Civil procedure — Costs — Dismissed motion for leave to appeal — Costs awarded to responding party — What is the appropriate cost award in the context of a dismissed motion for leave to appeal? — Costs of $5,000 awarded to the City of Toronto, inclusive, payable within thirty days
• 2025-07-25 Lee v Kim, 2025 ONSC 4061 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: unreported — inclusive — writing — discretion — panel
• 2025-07-25 Adam v. Earle, 2025 ONSC 4063 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: self-represented — unreported — writing — motion — leave
• 2025-07-25 8982457 Canada Inc. v. Business Development Bank, 2025 ONSC 4110 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: self-represented — thirty — inclusive — writing — payable