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

• 2026-01-15 Schickedanz v. Schickedanz, 2026 ONSC 297 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Estates and wills — Estate litigation costs — Public policy exceptions — Should the applicant’s costs be paid out of the Estate? — Historical approach displaced by modern loser pays — Findings of suspicious circumstances, lack of capacity, and self‑interest preclude indemnity — Estate trustees’ indemnity not absolute — Public policy would discourage improper will challenges — Applicant to bear own costs — Costs not paid from Estate
  Procedure — Offers to settle — Rule 49 — Are respondents entitled to substantial indemnity after service of offers? — Rule 49 applies to applications and offers not revoked absent written withdrawal under r. 49.04(1) — Comparative favourability of 2022 and 2024 offers assessed — Partial indemnity to offer date then substantial indemnity thereafter — Respondents presumptively entitled
  Procedure — Costs assessment — Reasonableness and proportionality — Are the respondents’ claimed fees reasonable and within reasonable expectations? — s. 131 Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 factors applied per Apotex — Significant variation from draft bills unexplained — Excessive time on affidavits identified — Hourly rates unreasonable — Lump sum fixed reflecting proportionality — Costs reduced
  Procedure — Abandoned application — Rule 38.03(3) — Are respondents entitled to costs of the withdrawn management fee application? — Application abandoned with only costs outstanding — No public policy exception — Adjournment motion not abandoned and costs to follow the event — Entitlement under r. 38.03(3) applied — Costs awarded to respondents
• 2026-01-15 Mileuska v. Najdovski, 2026 ONSC 299 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Security for costs — Family Law Rules, r. 24(20) — Whether motions judge erred in ordering security for costs — Non‑resident party with unpaid costs and no Ontario assets — Merits and justness assessed under Izyuk and Clark — Effect of stay under r. 24(22) considered — Order protects against nuisance or irresponsible litigation — Appeal dismissed
  Family — Child support — Retroactive variation — Did the motions judge err in finding blameworthy conduct? — D.B.S. factors and Colucci framework applied — No effective notice and long delay to seek variation — Lack of medical disclosure and overseas relocation weighed — Attempt to rescind longstanding arrears scrutinised — Finding of blameworthy conduct upheld
  Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Correctness for law, palpable and overriding error for fact or mixed fact and law — Vavilov and Housen cited — Deference to family law discretion emphasised in Hickey — Whether any extricable error of law or misapplication occurred — No reviewable error identified — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-01-15 Vista Sudbury Hotels Inc. v. The Oshawa Group Limited., 2026 ONSC 313 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Damages — Commercial lease — Consequential damages and remoteness under Hadley — Whether losses arose in the usual course or were within reasonable contemplation — Causation and foreseeability analysed with Highway Properties, Fidler, RBC Dominion, Saramia — Several heads too remote or unproven — Total damages fixed at $570,216.02 — Claim partly allowed
  Contracts — Mitigation — Renovations and improvements — Whether renovations were reasonable mitigation or upkeep and maintenance — Food court relocation, tiling, painting, exterior façade, windows and signage assessed — Projects found planned and unrelated to breach — Tenant relocations not caused or expedited by breach — Mitigation claims for renovations refused — Claims dismissed
  Contracts — Tenant inducements — Replacement and retention — Whether inducements to Hart and Rainbow Cinemas were caused by the breach and reasonably foreseeable — Cap Adjustment Clause non‑compensable — Interior signage and tenant allowance allowed — Portion of turnkey and HVAC costs allocated — Limited losses for certain tenant terminations awarded — Damages partly allowed
  Evidence — Expert opinion — Reply and sur‑reply — Whether JCWG2 exceeded proper reply and if sur‑reply without report admissible — Parties’ conduct and lack of prejudice considered — Full admission of Ms. Hutcheson’s and Mr. Tate’s evidence with weight to credibility and reliability — Evidence admitted
• 2026-01-14 Krandel v. CPA Professional Liability Plan Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 262 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Policy interpretation — Claims made and reported — Whether “common set of circumstances” clause alters temporal limitation — Plain wording “regardless of whether all such demands are made concurrently” applied — Simpson Wigle Law LLP principles cited — Policy may respond to later lawsuit if circumstances first reported in 2018 — Interpretation confirmed
  Procedure — Declarations — Prematurity of coverage application — Is it appropriate to decide indemnity on an incomplete factual record? — Risk of prejudicial factual findings and inconsistent results identified — Underlying actions the proper forum for factual determinations — Findings deferred until facts established — Application held premature
  Insurance — Coverage limits — Single claim determination — Do the two actions constitute a single Claim under the 2018 Policy? — Allegations suggest common circumstances concerning characterisation of payments from Lancashire — No factual record from discoveries — Court declines to decide pending findings in underlying actions — Determination deferred
• 2026-01-14 Dittmar et al. v. Dittmar et al., 2026 ONSC 268 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Consolidation — Rule 6.01 — Whether proceedings should be heard at the same time — Same transaction and common questions identified — Balance of convenience favours consolidation — Overlap of witnesses and risk of inconsistent findings — Both proceedings timetabled for the same trial sittings — Consent of all parties recorded — Consolidation ordered
  Procedure — Amendments to pleadings — Rule 26.01 — Should leave be granted to add historic sexual assault and Toronto Action allegations? — Non-compensable prejudice from delay and adjournment — Eleventh-hour request necessitating further discovery and expert evidence — Advanced age of plaintiffs considered — Multiplicity to be avoided under Courts of Justice Act, s. 138 — Leave to amend denied
  Civil liability — Unjust enrichment — Juristic reason — Can historic sexual assault serve as a juristic reason to deny recovery? — Kerr v. Baranow, Pettkus v. Becker considered — Reasonable expectations at the time of the transaction assessed — Allegations presumed true on motion yet argument not legally tenable — Separate sexual assault action not barred — Reliance not legally tenable
  Procedure — Consolidation — Dormant prior proceeding — Should the Toronto Action be consolidated or incorporated by amendment? — No common question or same transaction found — Tenuous connection and collateral issues — Significant risk of inconsistent findings if revived — Joinder principles under rr. 5 and 6 applied — Consolidation refused and amendments excluding Toronto Action disallowed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-01-15 McKee v. Tarion Warranty Corp., 2026 ONSC 205 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Appellate standards — Errors of law — Housen and Vavilov applied — Did the Tribunal apply the correct legal test for assessing damages arising from warranted defects under the ONHWPA? — Onus on appellants to show reversible legal error — Damages tied to warranted items accepted — Tribunal’s reasons adequate — Appeal dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Ontario New Home Warranties Plan — Reg. 892, s. 15(2)(a) — Does the Ducas two‑year water penetration test govern one‑year workmanship and materials warranty claims? — Distinction between warranties confirmed — No evidence of water infiltration — Ducas inapplicable to damages assessment on admitted one‑year breaches — Appeal dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Building Code — Acceptable solutions — Did the Tribunal err by adopting a functional approach to Building Code compliance rather than a prescriptive one? — Consideration of Division A objectives and functional statements — Preference for expert evidence on proper function — No legal error in analytical approach — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Tribunal jurisdiction — Scope of remedy — Was the Tribunal correct to confine damages to the reported, warranted claim items and require proportional remedies? — Jurisdiction limited to claimed items and Tarion decisions — Proportional repair versus complete rebrick — Onus not met to expand scope — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-01-15 Tong v. Duong, 2026 ONSC 266 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Rule 2.1.01 — Whether appeal should be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process — Pleadings read generously yet deficient on their face — Attempts to re‑litigate facts identified — Principles from Raji and Markowa applied — Appeal dismissed
  Lease and tenancy — Appeals — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210 — Is an appeal from the Landlord and Tenant Board restricted to questions of law? — Challenges to factual findings not permitted — Assertions of legal error masking factual disagreements — Application of facts to law not impugned — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — New issues on appeal — Can Human Rights Code arguments or contempt allegations be raised for the first time on appeal? — New grounds not raised before tribunal rejected — Allegations of false evidence not entertained within r. 2.1 process — No basis for contempt order established — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-01-15 1995636 Ontario v. 5010729 Ontario 2026, 2026 ONSC 284 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Construction — Construction liens — Lien discharge and project context — Whether lien for the Project was properly discharged and claim dismissed — Summary character of proceedings under Construction Act referenced — Accounting and work orders found deficient and unreliable — Time of the essence and deadlines unmet — Fraud found and claim denied — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Pleadings — Amendments in summary construction lien action — Whether interlocutory step of amending pleadings required leave under s. 13 of O. Reg. 302/18 — Consent to amendments and nunc pro tunc order considered — No prejudice and expedited resolution found — Courts of Justice Act, s. 134(6) applied — Appeal dismissed
  Evidence — Character and credibility — Prior misconduct and convictions — Whether trial judge erred by using inadmissible propensity evidence to establish fraud — R. v. Handy applied to relevance and use — Evidence used for credibility and reliability, not propensity — Jarvis v. Oliveira cited on weight — Appeal dismissed
  Civil liability — Fraud — Civil fraudulent misrepresentation — Did the trial judge misapprehend the evidence and err in finding civil fraud? — Test in Paulus v. Fleury articulated and applied — Intent inferred from half-truths and subterfuge — Deference to credibility findings and circumstantial evidence — Appeal dismissed
  Contracts — Breach and termination — Fundamental breach and mitigation — Whether the trial judge erred in analysing breach of contract and the lien claim — Contract for multi‑unit dwelling breached to such extent the subject matter could not be accomplished — No duty to mitigate required on facts — Tercon discussed — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-01-14 Cai Song v. Ontario Labour Relations Board, 2026 ONSC 165 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review and reasonableness — Presumption of reasonableness review under Vavilov — What is the applicable standard of review and was the Board’s decision reasonable? — Review limited to assessing justification intelligibility transparency and outcome — Challenges to factual findings and credibility rejected — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Reconsideration — Was the applicant denied procedural fairness and should reconsideration have been sought first? — Baker factors applied — Opportunity to make submissions and fairness assessed — Information Bulletin 19 and s.114(1) LRA reconsideration engaged — Judicial review premature on matters suited to reconsideration — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Collateral findings — Did the Board exceed its jurisdiction by making findings about defamation and harassment? — Use of “defamatory” in ordinary sense not determination of tort — Harassment comments obiter not Human Rights Code ruling — Decision within Board’s mandate on OHSA reprisal and LRA s.72 — Application dismissed
  Evidence — Administrative tribunals — Adverse inference and record admissibility — Did the Board err in its evidentiary rulings and in declining to draw an adverse inference? — MOL file excluded for no evidentiary value and Browne and Dunn — No critical conflict requiring adverse inference — Credibility findings owed deference — Application dismissed
• 2026-01-14 Regional Municipality of York v 2090396 Ontario Ltd., 2026 ONSC 195 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Motions — Intervention — Rule 13.02 friend of the court — Should leave be granted in a private dispute between an expropriating authority and a claimant? — Factors from Peel v. A&P applied — Heavier burden where litigation is essentially private — No public policy or novel legal issue driving intervention — Motion dismissed without costs
  Procedure — Appeals — Intervenors’ contribution — Did the proposed intervenors show a useful and distinct contribution not otherwise offered by the appellant? — Overlap with appellant’s submissions on s. 14(4)(b) and s. 14(1) of the Expropriations Act — Submissions duplicative per Jones v. Tsige — Broader perspective not materially different — Motion dismissed without costs
  Procedure — Case management — Prejudice and delay — Would intervention cause injustice or undue delay by distorting the focus of the appeal? — Capital planning implications and regional plans irrelevant to compensation appeal — Risk of broadening and complicating a private dispute — Tribunal’s scheme findings specific to York Region and City policies — Motion dismissed without costs