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

• 2026-06-18 Louis Jones Construction Ltd. v. Jonathan Rocque o/a J-Rock Construction, Roxanne Rocque and Caisse Populaire Trillium Inc., 2026 ONSC 3159 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Construction — Construction liens — Lien preservation — Which statute applies to the improvement — Application of Construction Act, s. 87.3 to determine Old Act governance — What is the last date of supply under s. 1(1) where equipment remains on site — Skid steer removal fixed as last supply — Forty‑five day deadline under Old Act missed — Liens expired and vacated
  Contracts — Restitution — Quantum meruit — Is quantum meruit available where a contract exists — Construction Lien Act regime ousts equitable recovery by subcontractors against owners — No evidence of improved value to the property — Contract and lien legislation govern the dispute — Quantum meruit claim dismissed
  Contracts — Breach — Time and materials agreement — Did the plaintiff breach or abandon the contract — Scope of work verbal and limited — Alleged deficiencies not proven and no opportunity to rectify — Foundation laid and finishing outside agreed scope — Damages for breach not established — Damages claim dismissed
• 2026-06-17 Levy v. Crawford & Company, 2026 ONSC 3581 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Pleadings — Motion to strike — Plain and obvious test — Whether claims disclose no reasonable cause of action — Generous reading of pleadings applied, perfection not required (Frank v. Legate, Rausch v. Pickering) — Proximity and duty analysis requires fuller factual record (Maple Leaf Foods, paras. 33, 34, 66) — Releases and entire agreement clause require evidence — Motion to strike dismissed
  Civil liability — Negligence — Negligent misrepresentation — Duty of care — Whether negligent misrepresentation relying on undertakings and reliance is sufficiently pleaded — Statements of future intent versus present facts addressed (Queen v. Cognos, Kelly v. Lundgard) — Present intention and factual foundation pleaded, including lack of concrete plan (Argyle, Toronto-Dominion Bank) — Motion to strike negligent misrepresentation dismissed
  Business associations — Oppression remedy — Canada Business Corporations Act, s. 241 — Whether oppression claim is barred by availability of contract — Reasonable expectations pleaded and allegedly violated by corporate conduct, including use of control to frustrate earnout — J.S.M. v. The Brick distinguished, Fedel v. Tan and F.N.F. Enterprises applied — Motion to strike oppression claim dismissed
  Procedure — Pleadings — Amendments — Whether amended statement of claim filed without leave is a nullity — Rules of Civil Procedure should not impede reasonable procedural solutions — Amendment not abusive, no prejudice shown, circumstances align with Vale Canada Limited v. Solway Investment Group Limited — Leave to amend granted and amendment treated as valid
  Procedure — Costs — Motions — Plaintiff entirely successful on motion — Whether close-call arguments justify costs in the cause — Substantial indemnity not warranted given limited compromise of offer — Proportionality not determinative for significant motion — Comparable actual costs, fairness considered — Costs fixed at $40,000, all-inclusive, payable within 30 days
• 2026-06-17 R c Vien, 2026 ONCS 110 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: doute raisonnable — accusé — mots — menace — mort
• 2026-06-17 Navaratnarajah v. FSB Group Ltd., 2026 ONSC 3314 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Functus officio — Variation of costs — Whether the motion judge was functus officio after entry of a final costs order — Contextual approach to functus officio applied (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Manitoba, McLean v. Carr Estate) — New and critical facts regarding costs coverage unknown despite due diligence — Jurisdiction retained to revisit and vary costs order — Not functus officio — Costs order open to variation
  Procedure — Rule 59.06 — Inherent jurisdiction — Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 12 — Can the costs order be varied based on facts discovered after it was made? — Rule 59.06 engaged, Royal Bank v. Korman distinguished — Inherent jurisdiction and case management powers support relief — Authority to order costs against non-party recognised — Costs order varied to reflect new facts
  Professional responsibility — Class counsel — Indemnity for adverse costs — Should class counsel be made liable for defendants’ costs in a decertified class action? — Court supervision of class counsel and retainer expectations — Indemnification against adverse costs expected in class proceedings — Non-party costs order appropriate to avoid unfair enforcement against representative plaintiff — Class counsel added as responsible for payment of costs
  Procedure — Solicitor’s costs liability — Rule 57.07 — Is a Rule 57.07 motion required to order costs against a solicitor of record? — Undue delay noted but not determinative — Relief grounded in Rule 59.06, inherent jurisdiction, and CPA s. 12 rather than solicitor’s misconduct rule — Non-party costs ordered without invoking Rule 57.07 — Rule 57.07 not applied
• 2026-06-17 G&L Group Ltd. v. Pasquale (Pat) Lamanna, 2026 ONSC 3564 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Arbitration — Appeals under Arbitration Act, 1991 — Leave to appeal — Whether alleged reconciliation errors are questions of law under s. 45 — Southam and Teal Cedar applied to distinguish law from mixed fact and law — Strategic reframing of factual findings rejected — Importance and significant effect thresholds not met — Leave to appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Arbitration — Set‑aside — Section 46(1) — Whether conduct was “sufficiently egregious to offend basic notions of morality and justice” — Deference to arbitral process affirmed, Consolidated Contractors, Fuego Digital cited — Thorough, even‑handed awards found basically fair — No procedural breach meeting high bar — Application to set aside dismissed
  Procedure — Arbitration — Recognition and enforcement — Section 50 — Should the court enforce the June Award, Injunction Award, Haulage Award and costs awards? — High deference to arbitral outcomes and limited appellate intervention reaffirmed — No basis to refuse enforcement identified — Amounts ordered payable within specified time — Awards enforced
  Procedure — Arbitration — Jurisdiction and remedies — Injunctive relief — Did the Arbitrator exceed jurisdiction by affecting non‑parties? — Orders directed to party’s own conduct and undertakings, no adjudication of third‑party rights — Standard injunction test applied on full record — No jurisdictional overreach found — Challenge dismissed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-06-18 Likibi c. 2838752 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCS 3576 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: arriérés — prétension — démissionna — location — comparut
• 2026-06-15 Navado Fraser v. Califair, 2026 ONSC 3433 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease and tenancy — Eviction for non-compliance with conditional order — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 78 — Did the tenant fail to pay rent in full and on time? — Payment short by $72.50 and one day late after rent increase email — Labour Day timing under LTB Rule 1.14 insufficient — Tenancy terminated — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Without-notice order — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 78 — Was proceeding without notice lawful and procedurally fair? — Statute authorises application without notice in circumstances present — Proper recourse was motion to set aside under s. 78(9) — No record to challenge legislation — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals from tribunals — Questions of law only — Standard of review correctness — Can post-appeal rent issues or new history be considered on appeal? — Appeals limited to errors of law, new merits evidence declined — Failure to bring motion to set aside noted — No legal error shown — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-15 Brar v. ATU Local 113, 2026 ONSC 3441 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Extension of time — Judicial Review Procedure Act, s. 5(1), s. 5(2) — Whether to extend time given almost eighteen months’ delay — Weak explanation for delay, including withdrawn unfair labour practice complaint — Presumption of prejudice and finality in labour relations engaged — Discretion exercised against extension — Extension refused
  Labour and employment — Labour arbitration — Standing to seek judicial review — Unionized employee cannot seek judicial review where union declines, absent exceptions — Email stating employee was free to seek his own remedy considered in context — Unfair labour practice avenue pursued then withdrawn — Whether exceptions apply — Standing not established
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Presumptive reasonableness and deference to labour arbitrators — Alleged legal errors in compensation relying on private employment law — Attempt to revisit factual findings — No merit against the arbitrator personally — Procedural unfairness allegations not persuasive — Are there apparent grounds for relief — Apparent grounds not shown
• 2026-06-12 Admore Capital Group GP Inc. v. Hajduk, 2026 ONSC 3303 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appeals — Leave to appeal — Should leave to appeal be granted from the decision of Koehnen J.? — Motion for leave to appeal by Admore Capital Group GP Inc. and Geoffrey Carnevale — Divisional Court endorsement, heard in writing, Ontario Superior Court of Justice — Motion for leave to appeal the decision of Koehnen J. dismissed — Leave to appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Costs on motions — Are costs payable where no bill of costs was provided? — As no bill of costs was provided, no costs are ordered — Divisional Court endorsement following written hearing — Parties identified and roles noted — No costs ordered on dismissal of motion — Costs denied
• 2026-06-12 Jennings Lodge Inc. v. Canadian Mental Health Association, 2026 ONSC 3304 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: motion — outline — leave — costs — extension