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

• 2026-05-28 Crossdock Systems Inc. v. General Motors of Canada Co., 2026 ONSC 3141 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Security interests — Possessory lien — Repair and Storage Liens Act — Whether Crossdock acquired a possessory lien when containers were deposited by a non-owner intermediary — Agency under s. 1(2) not established, but storer’s lien arises on receipt under s. 4(3) — Intermediary lawfully in possession through approved logistics chain — Possessory lien recognised
  Security interests — Notice requirement — Repair and Storage Liens Act, s. 4(4) and s. 4(6) — Does knowledge that the depositor is not the owner trigger sixty-day notice to the owner — Failure to give required notice limits lien to first sixty days of storage — Protective purpose for owners affirmed — Lien limited to sixty days
  Security interests — Non-possessory lien — Repair and Storage Liens Act, s. 7(5) — Is a non-possessory lien enforceable without a signed acknowledgment of indebtedness — Minutes of Settlement not an acknowledgment and liability denied — No signed acknowledgment from owner — Non-possessory lien denied
  Security interests — Pay into court — Repair and Storage Liens Act, s. 24 — Whether the possessory lien attaches as a charge to funds paid into trust for release of articles — Payment into trust treated as pay-into-court mechanism — Charge attaches only for the limited sixty-day amount — Charge over trust funds for sixty-day storage only
• 2026-05-28 Interload Truck Services Ltd. v. General Motors of Canada Co., 2026 ONSC 3140 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Security interests — Liens — Possessory lien, Repair and Storage Liens Act — Did the storer acquire a possessory lien when goods were deposited by an intermediary without the owner’s consent? — Lien arises on receipt for storage, in rem against the article — Failure to give sixty‑day notice under s. 4(4) limits recovery by s. 4(6) — Charge against trust funds limited to first sixty days
  Statutory interpretation — Repair and Storage Liens Act — Construction of s. 4(4) — Whether notice applies only if the article was subject to a lien before storage — Conjunctive reading of “or” adopted to protect owners lacking knowledge or consent — Notice triggered when storer knows depositor is not the owner — Interpretation confirmed
  Security interests — Liens — Non‑possessory lien — Is a signed acknowledgment of indebtedness required by s. 7(5) RSLA? — Payment into trust under s. 24 and Minutes of Settlement not an admission — Written communications expressly denying liability — Threshold statutory requirement unmet — Non‑possessory lien denied
  Civil liability — Unjust enrichment — Quantum meruit — Were storage services requested, freely accepted, or incontrovertibly beneficial to the owner? — No request, encouragement or acquiescence by owner — Temporary loss of containers led to purchase of new containers — No incontrovertible benefit established — Equitable claims dismissed
• 2026-05-27 Glowinsky v. Glowinsky, 2026 ONSC 3003 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Child support — Imputing income — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19 — Whether income should be imputed to the applicant — High‑income payor exceeding s. 4 threshold and hybrid custody with set‑off — Table amount presumed appropriate, Francis v. Baker applied — Drygala v. Pauli, Homsi v. Zaya and Kohli v. Thom considered — No imputation found — Child support ordered per Table with set‑off
  Family — Section 7 expenses — Apportionment — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 7(2), Schedule III para. 3(a) — Whether expenses should be shared by proportionate income or equally using NDI — Ostapchuk v. Ostapchuk followed — Private school and childcare costs assessed, tax effects considered — Equal sharing rejected given large income disparity — Section 7 expenses apportioned proportionately to income
  Family — Spousal support — Interim — Divorce Act, s. 15.2 and SSAG with child support formula — Appropriate location within the SSAG range pending trial — Equalization of net disposable income argued and rejected — Needs, means and children’s living standards emphasized — Contino referenced, RUG paras. 8(f) and 8(h) considered — Spousal support ordered at low end of SSAG range
  Procedure — Interim disbursements — Family Law Rules, r. 24(25) — Whether to order interim funding to level the playing field — Parente v. Parente and Stuart v. Stuart considered — Line of credit accepted as funding source — Criminal defence fees excluded — Partial release ordered at 33 percent of requested expert and legal fee amounts — Interim disbursements partially granted
• 2026-05-27 Ebube v. Hendricks et al., 2026 ONSC 3108 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Discovery and production — Pre‑accident medical records — Whether a third year of medical records must be produced — Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 30.02 and 29.2.03 — Three‑year baseline confirmed through relevance and proportionality — Memelli v. Bhandal, Trumble v. Soomal, Saleh v. Ambalavanar and Sambasivam applied — Privacy weighed against common practice — Additional year found reasonable and justified — Order for production granted
  Procedure — Non‑party production — Employment file — Whether CENTURY 21 must produce the Plaintiff’s employment file pre‑trial — Rule 30.10 test for relevance to a material issue and fairness — Derenzis v. Ontario and Ontario v. Stavro considered — Importance of records and non‑party relationship assessed — Necessity for fair hearing established — Defendant to pay reasonable production costs — Order for production granted
• 2026-05-27 Sherman v. Sherman, 2026 ONSC 3115 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Trusts — Testamentary trusts — Three certainties — Whether the holograph will created a binding trust or merely expressed a precatory wish — Language “I trust him to care … as he sees fit” held non‑imperative — Knight v. Knight, Waters, Johnson v. Farney, Smith v. Patterson, Re Miles applied — Gift absolute, no trust, no breach of trust — Summary judgment granted
  Estates and wills — Dependants’ relief — SLRA, Part V — Whether the deceased was “providing support” immediately before death within s. 57(1) — No legal obligation to support, isolated e‑transfer, historic loan, independent living — Armchair rule unnecessary where no ambiguity in will — Dependency not established on evidentiary record — Dependency claim dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 20.04 — Whether there is a genuine issue requiring a trial — Hryniak v. Mauldin framework applied — Judge may weigh evidence, evaluate credibility, draw inferences — Respondent must put best foot forward and cannot rely on pleadings — Proportionate, fair and just determination on record — Motion allowed
  Civil liability — Torts and equity — Conversion and unjust enrichment — Whether evidentiary basis supports conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty or constructive trust — Allegations not seriously addressed, no evidence meeting recognised tests, claims characterised as gratuitous and speculative — No genuine issues requiring trial on ancillary claims — Claims dismissed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-05-27 Farooque v. Korba, 2026 ONSC 3124 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Disclosure — Production of records — Whether ordering production of counselling records from 2005–2009 was permissible in an undue influence challenge — Threshold of “may inform the relationship” analysed — Innately offensive fishing expedition into most private health information rejected — Interlocutory order assessed against relevance to the 2021 will — Order for production set aside
  Procedure — Appeals — Interlocutory orders — Did the motion judge commit palpable and overriding error by relying on absence of evidence proximate to death and on undated, unsigned notes? — Absence of proximate evidence not a basis for more disclosure — Errors of mixed fact and law identified — Order for production set aside
  Procedure — Costs — Proportionality — Should costs be reduced despite the parties’ agreement? — Interlocutory steps caused delay and expense to a relatively small estate — Request for therapeutic records was not proportional — Two year period for disclosure was more than needed — Costs fixed at $7,500
  Estates and wills — Undue influence — Relevant time — In a will challenge, is the relevant time the time the will was made? — Parties acknowledged the relevant time is when the 2021 will was made — Records proximate to death were produced and silent on undue influence — Disclosure framework anchored to relevant time — Appeal allowed
• 2026-05-27 Lloyd v. Longarini, 2026 ONSC 2937 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Pleadings and fairness — Whether motion judge decided case on a “novel theory” outside the pleadings — Alleged denial of right to know and meet the case — Amended Statement of Claim and motion materials expressly raised failure to advise — Issue joined in factum and evidence — No unfairness established — Appeal dismissed
  Civil liability — Solicitor’s negligence — Whether work fell below the standard of a competent solicitor — Inadmissible affidavits by non‑witness, refusal to submit to examination, threatening letter to a witness, disorganised materials — Findings supported, no palpable and overriding error — Damages for negligence maintained — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Costs — Is a costs order appealable on its merits without leave — Leave neither sought nor granted — Modest costs within discretion of motion judge — Purported costs appeal unavailable — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Appropriateness and standard of review — Was summary judgment a proportional and practical way to proceed — Housen v. Nikolaisen cited on standards — Jurisdiction confirmed under Courts of Justice Act, s. 19(1.2)(a) — No error in granting summary judgment — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-05-26 Henkel v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al., 2026 ONSC 3056 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Accommodation — Whether HRTO failed to accommodate and denied a fair hearing — Accommodations granted including a second hearing date, breaks, communication support and additional written submissions — No breach from not recording hearing in accordance with practice direction — Record omissions later cured with extensions — Summary process presuming allegations true — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Bias — Reasonable apprehension of bias — High threshold and presumption of impartiality — Allegations of fabrication, misquotation and preference for respondent unsupported by evidence — Reasons reflect a fair and even assessment — Not all material must be recited — No cogent evidence of partiality — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reasonableness — Judicial review of summary dismissal — Whether decision dismissing discrimination, harassment and reprisal claims was reasonable — Findings that Code protected rights not breached and no reasonable prospect of success — Deference to tribunal controlling its process — Coherent and rational chain of analysis — Application dismissed
  Limitation periods — Human rights proceedings — One-year limitation at HRTO — Whether claims were out of time and could be anchored by a series of events — Incidents largely years before application and delay not in good faith — Sole timely reprisal allegation lacked evidence and could not anchor earlier events — Limitation decision reasonable and not discriminatory — Application dismissed
• 2026-05-25 Chevalier-Wara v. Economical, 2026 ONSC 2982 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Reasons — Sufficiency of reasons — Whether LAT’s reasons were inadequate — Findings stated without evidentiary basis or engagement with expert evidence — Failure to analyse conflicting GOS-E assessments and testimonial record — Inability of parties and reviewing court to understand critical findings — Question of law under Sheppard — Appeal allowed and decision quashed
  Insurance — Statutory accident benefits — Catastrophic impairment and attendant care benefits — GOS-E criteria and work capacity — Whether applicant should be rated level 5 or level 6 for inability to work or only sheltered or non-competitive work — Entitlement to ACBs tied to executive functioning — Merits not determined — Matter remitted for fresh hearing
  Administrative law — Standard of review — Appeals from LAT — Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, s. 11(6) — What is the applicable standard of review for questions of law — Correctness standard per Vavilov applied — Sufficiency of reasons characterised as a question of law — Appeal allowed
  Administrative law — Remedies — Tribunal errors and remittal — What remedy where findings rest on no evidence and reasons are inadequate — Decision set aside as unsafe — Case remitted to LAT for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator with scheduling priority — Costs awarded to the Appellant
• 2026-05-22 Looby v. Markaroglu, 2026 ONSC 2848 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: parenting — interlocutory — costs — writing — ordered