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

• 2025-12-23 The Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the United States v. Paradkar, 2025 ONSC 7187 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Bail — Extradition — Primary ground — Extradition Act, s. 19, Criminal Code, s. 515(10) — Reverse onus under s. 515(6) engaged — Whether detention is necessary to ensure attendance — Flight scenarios assessed and rejected — Health, surety supervision, electronic monitoring considered — Strong community ties and significant recognizance — Attendance assured — Release ordered
  Procedure — Bail — Extradition — Secondary ground — Risk of obstruction — Whether detention is necessary to protect the public or prevent interference with justice — No history of breaches — House arrest, device restrictions, GPS monitoring — Reliable surety with strong financial stake — Operational risks mitigated by stringent conditions — Detention not required — Release ordered
  Procedure — Bail — Extradition — Tertiary ground — Confidence in the administration of justice — Apparent strength, gravity, circumstances, potential sentence balanced under s. 515(10)(c) — Treaty obligations, safety and health in detention, strength of plan weighed — Whether detention is necessary to maintain confidence — Narrowly met burden — Release ordered
  Evidence — Bail — Admissibility at bail — Criminal Code, s. 518 — United States “bail letter” — Whether foreign recommendations are admissible and what weight they attract — Court may receive credible and trustworthy information — Opinion or advocacy afforded limited weight per practice — Portions with evidentiary value considered — Letter admitted with caution — Release ordered
• 2025-12-23 The Toronto Regional Real Estate Board v. IMS Incorporated, 2025 ONSC 7195 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Ex parte motions — Full and fair disclosure — Rule 39.01(6), rule 37.14 — Did failure to disclose material facts justify setting aside the amendment order? — Hogg v. Wealthsimple applied to the heavy onus — Omission of related litigation history found material — Order obtained without full disclosure set aside — Motion granted
  Procedure — Service of motions — Motions without notice — Rule 37.07(2) — Whether service of the amendment motion was unnecessary where the order affected the Defendants — Requirement to serve parties affected by the order emphasized — No basis for proceeding ex parte identified — Motion should have been on notice — Order set aside
  Limitation periods — Discoverability — Amendment adding a party — Limitations Act, 2002, s. 5 — Were prior Federal Court pleadings and history material to limitation defences and prejudice on amendment? — Morrison v. Barzo and Austin v. Overs considered — Non-disclosure might have affected tenability and prejudice analysis — Materiality established — Order set aside
  Procedure — Discretion — Remedies on breach of disclosure duty — Rule 37.14 — Should the court decline to set aside the ex parte order despite non-disclosure? — General rule that orders obtained without full disclosure are set aside reaffirmed — Vigneault v. Brosseau applied — Efficiency concerns rejected — Discretion not exercised — Order set aside
• 2025-12-23 Raymond Exterior Veneers Inc v. Exterior Walls Systems Limited et al, 2025 ONSC 7198 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Time extension — Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure rr. 3.02, 1.04 — Whether the court should extend time and relieve against non-compliance with a consent order — Minor breach, intention to comply, no prejudice, merits favoured — Guidance from Duffin v. NBY Enterprises Inc., 2010 ONCA 765 — Extension granted, non-compliance relieved
  Procedure — Default judgment — Consent order consequences — Should default judgment be refused where particulars were delivered two days late? — Rule 1.04 liberal construction and justice of the case applied — Prejudice assessed, seriousness of breach minimal, litigation could proceed — Statement of Defence and Counterclaim reinstated, default judgment dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Motions arising from late compliance — Whether costs should be awarded on extension and reinstatement motions — Prior tardiness acknowledged, but merits-based resolution preferred and plaintiff’s motion proceeded without noting late delivery — No order as to costs
• 2025-12-23 Cross v. Cooling Tower Maintenance Inc., 2025 ONSC 7203 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Settlement agreements — Repudiation — Whether failure to disclose re-employment repudiated — Intentional non-disclosure found — Exceptional remedy requires deprivation of substantially the whole benefit — Remedy Drug Store, Jedfro, Stayside factors applied — Protection from further litigation remained — Agreement not undermined — Repudiation not established
  Contracts — Settlement agreements — Interpretation — Does cessation of payments extinguish the fifty percent lump sum? — Clause provides reimbursement for overpayments, not forfeiture of lump sum — Language not sufficiently clear to deny lump sum — Failure to pay lump sum a breach — Lump sum owing under Settlement Agreement — Payment ordered
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Rule 20.04(2.1) powers and Rule 49.09 — Whether a fair and just determination can be made on the record — Hryniak framework applied — No genuine issue requiring a trial — Paper record sufficient to make findings and apply law — Summary judgment granted
  Labour and employment — Post-termination duties — Counterclaim — Whether heightened duties of loyalty or fiduciary duty and bad faith established — No evidence of heightened duties or breach — Claim for aggravated or punitive damages unsupported — Repayment owing governed by Settlement Agreement terms — Counterclaim partly allowed, punitive damages claim dismissed
• 2025-12-22 Stronach v. Stronach, 2025 ONSC 7158 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Arbitration — Jurisdiction — Arbitration Act, 1991, s. 46(1)3 — Did the arbitrator exceed his authority by considering non‑CICBV compliant reports? — Scope of arbitration agreement in Schedule C, methodology unrestricted — Alectra Utilities and Mensula Bancorp applied — Issue decided was properly before the arbitrator — Set‑aside for excess of jurisdiction refused — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Arbitration — Waiver and timeliness — Arbitration Act, 1991, ss. 4(1), 17(5) — Whether applicants waived objections by participating without timely jurisdictional objection — Knowledge of alleged non‑compliance and consent to admissibility — Competence‑competence engaged and not invoked — Failure to object within a reasonable time — Waiver found — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Arbitration — Procedural fairness — Arbitration Act, 1991, ss. 19, 46(1)6 — Was procedural fairness denied when the arbitrator elicited a valuation opinion at the end of evidence? — Opportunity to respond not sought — Ability to ask further questions or reply evidence — Baker, Vento Motorcycles and Aquanta cited — No unfairness established — Application dismissed
  Procedure — Arbitration — Reasons and methodology — Final‑offer arbitration and brief reasons requirement — Whether reasons opaque or arbitrator improperly used his own calculations — Consideration of scenarios based on evidence from PwC and KSV — Paras. 20, 31, 32 explained chain of reasoning — No cherry‑picking found — Reasons adequate, award intelligible — Application dismissed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-12-22 New Sunlight Inc. v. Minister of Infrastructure, 2025 ONSC 7162 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Motions — Pre‑hearing examinations — Judicial review — Whether the court should order an examination under r. 39.03 — Prima facie right limited in judicial review proceedings — Evidentiary basis and relevancy required per Payne and Bokhari — Proposed summons characterised as a fishing expedition and abuse of process — Motion dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Record on review — Do the proposed topics fall within exceptions permitting evidence beyond the record? — Exceptions for background, procedural defects, or complete lack of evidence reiterated from Rockcliffe Park — Topics address merits, not permissible supplementation — No basis to expand record — Motion dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Alleged defects — Has the applicant shown a foundation for procedural unfairness justifying limited examination? — No entitlement to reasons beyond record under Vavilov — Proposed witness not privy to decision‑making and made no recommendation — Payne distinguished on facts and evidentiary showing — Motion dismissed
  Administrative law — Expropriation — Context — Do expropriation context and absence of a hearing of necessity justify expanding the record? — Severity of governmental interference acknowledged — Transit‑oriented community designation and Expropriations Act context considered — Limits on judicial review record unchanged by context — Motion dismissed
• 2025-12-19 Lischkoff v. Royal Bank of Canada, 2025 ONSC 7134 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: thirty — inclusive — fixed — writing — payable
• 2025-12-19 Jeyaranjan v. Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, 2025 ONSC 6152 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Statutory interpretation — Highway Traffic Act, s. 204(2) — “Action or other proceeding” — Does immunity for medical condition reports oust College complaint jurisdiction? — Consistent expression and absurdity avoided — Coroners Act comparison and public protection purpose considered — College complaint not an “other proceeding” — College jurisdiction over complaint affirmed — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Was the conclusion that the physician’s rationale for a mandatory MTO report was “artificial and unsupportable” reasonable? — Vavilov framework applied — Record, professional standards and prior caution assessed — Committee’s screening function not exceeded — Decision transparent, intelligible and justified — Board confirmation reasonable — Application for judicial review dismissed
  Health — Health information — Confidentiality — Was disclosure to the patient’s father a breach of patient confidentiality? — PHIPA, ss. 29 and 40(1) analysed — Personal health information identified and no safety exception engaged — Repeated calls without consent or significant risk of serious bodily harm — Committee’s concern reasonable — Education and caution remedial — Application for judicial review dismissed
• 2025-12-19 Rizzo v. Daniel, 2025 ONSC 6286 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Partition and sale — Easements and rights-of-way — Whether paragraph 1(e) requiring the purchaser to sign the planning application and cooperate to grant a permanent right-of-way was properly imposed — Partition Act applied to settle terms to effect sale — Evidence of longstanding access and Schedule C of APS considered — Appeal on sale terms dismissed
  Procedure — Stays — Interlocutory relief — Should the Sale Order be stayed pending the determination of the Toronto Action — Uncertainty and potential CPL risks weighed — Agreement that sale proceed undermined request to defer — No merit to stay request — Stay refused
  Procedure — Appeals — Standards of review — What is the applicable appellate standard of review under the Partition Act — Correctness for questions of law and palpable and overriding error for facts and mixed questions with extricable legal error — Vavilov and Housen cited — Standards confirmed
  Procedure — Costs — Indemnity scale — Did the Applications Judge err in awarding costs on a full indemnity basis — Reliance on undertaking was a palpable and overriding error — Substantial indemnity warranted given conduct and offers to settle — Costs varied
• 2025-12-19 McMaster University v. Chandos Construction Limited, 2025 ONSC 6990 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: application for judicial review — all-inclusive — motion — leave — certified