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

• 2026-07-28 R. v. Vacca, 2026 ONSC 4353 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Criminal and statutory offences — Summary conviction appeal — Impaired operation and refusing a breath sample — Whether convictions can stand where the initial HTA arrest analysis was flawed — Link between warrantless arrest and subsequent breath demand evidence — Convictions dependent on post‑arrest evidence — Appeal allowed and new trial ordered
  Rights and freedoms — Charter — Arrest and detention — Whether the warrantless “fail to remain” arrest was reasonable and justified — Crown’s onus to establish lawfulness of arrest leading to a breath demand, R v Gerson‑Foster referenced — Trial judge failed to conduct the required Charter inquiry — Legal error in Charter analysis found — Appeal allowed and new trial ordered
  Statutory interpretation — Highway Traffic Act — Section 200(1) — Scope of “remain or immediately return” and related obligations — Do s. 200(1) obligations justify arrest in a single‑vehicle accident with no injuries or other parties? — Contextual reading with ss. 199‑201 and R v. Weir, R v. Hajivasilis — Trial judge’s analysis incomplete — New trial ordered
  Procedure — Criminal appeals — Curative proviso — Whether to apply curative proviso where convictions rely on evidence obtained after the impugned arrest — Test from R v. O’Brien considered — Outcome would not necessarily be the same absent the error — Curative proviso declined — Appeal allowed and new trial ordered
• 2026-07-28 ANUKRITI CREATIVES INC. v. RETHINK COMMUNICATIONS LP, 2026 ONSC 4314 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Corporate representation — Leave for non-lawyer under Rule 15.01(2) — Did the corporation satisfy Extend‑a‑Call factors? — Closely held corporation, authorization and stakeholder interests established — Capability to comprehend and advocate found — Stile Carpentry and 1876029 Ontario Ltd. distinguished — Super Channel International Corp., Ward, Lamond considered — Leave granted without prejudice to review or conditions — Efficient progression of action emphasised — Leave to represent corporation granted subject to review
  Procedure — Time extensions — Rule 3.02 — Should the 90‑day deadline in the prior order be extended? — Defendants conceded extension if leave granted — Access to justice and Rule 1.04(1) cited — Extension tied to filing of settled order — Avoiding litigation limbo and promoting expeditious determination — Extension ordered to date of settled or court‑settled order — Deadline extended
  Procedure — Costs — Motion costs — What costs order follows mixed success on the motion? — Discretion under Rule 57.01 applied — Costs thrown away for aborted attendance considered — Fong v. Chan referenced — Relief granted but not unqualified — No evidentiary basis for plaintiff’s claimed preparation time — Each party to bear own costs — No costs, each party bears own costs
• 2026-07-27 Cassells et al v. Reid et al, 2026 ONSC 4359 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Adverse possession — Driveway encroachment — Whether adverse possession of the disputed driveway strip was established for a continuous ten-year period before conversion — Evidence of longstanding paved use and RV parking assessed — Elements of possession, intention, and exclusion examined — Effective exclusion not proven — Claim dismissed
  Property — Adverse possession — Intention and exclusion — Did the plaintiffs demonstrate an intention to exclude and effective exclusion of the true owner? — Objective conduct indicating intention inferred from longstanding paving and parking — Absence of physical barriers and owner access undermining exclusion — Neighbourly accommodation and acquiescence found — Effective exclusion not established
  Property — Possession of ancillary area — Grassy strip behind driveway — Whether actual possession of the grassy area was proven throughout any identifiable ten-year period — Sparse evidence of use and lack of continuous acts of possession — Photographs and testimony insufficient to show dominion — Actual possession of grassy area not established
  Limitation periods — Real property — Adverse possession and land titles conversion — Real Property Limitations Act, s. 4, Land Titles Act, s. 51 — Do possessory rights need to crystallise during a ten-year period ending before conversion to land titles? — No new possessory rights after conversion — Requirement affirmed — Claim dismissed and crossclaim for absolute title granted
• 2026-07-24 Leader Heating & Plumbing Inc. v. Aragon (Wellesley) Development (Ontario) Corporation, 2026 ONSC 4324 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Construction liens — Security reduction — Whether security posted for the lien should be further reduced under s. 44(5) — Test requiring convincing demonstration that maximum recovery will be less than security and no reasonable prospect of proving the lien amount — Onus on moving party not met — Existing security not reduced — Motion dismissed
  Construction — Liens — Quantum — Calculation of maximum potentially recoverable lien under s. 17(1) — Accounting for payments made and unpaid balance confirmed — Non‑lienable overhead and professional fees excluded — Reliance on claimant’s expert for delay‑related costs — Whether total contract price without payments can ground lien — Calculation based on pre‑payment figure rejected — Motion dismissed
  Construction — Liens — Condominium projects — Whether lien must be pro‑rated across 179 units and limited to nine liened units — Alleged admission of pro rata approach not established — Novel issue reserved for full record — Triable issue found on applicability of per‑unit pro rating to condominium work — Security not further reduced pending trial — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Civil procedure — References — Procedural framework for motion in a reference — Rules apply by s. 50(2) of the Construction Act — Authority of associate judge to hear motion in referee’s absence under rule 54.05(1) confirmed — Rules 54 and 55 governing references engaged — Motion properly heard and determined — Motion dismissed
• 2026-07-24 Abbas Sharifzadeh, represented by his Litigation Guardian, Azardokht Nejad, et al. v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto, 2026 ONSC 4325 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Court approval of settlements — Rule 7.08 — Person under disability — Whether proposed settlement is in the best interest of the person under disability — Risk on liability and causation given preexisting conditions — Pretrial settlement achieved and terms reviewed — Approval of proposed settlement granted — Judgment to issue
  Professional responsibility — Fees — Contingent fee Retainer Agreement — Reasonableness — Is the contingent fee reasonable as of the date of this hearing under Henricks-Hunter v. 814888 Ontario Inc. (Phoenix Concert Theatre)? — Docketed time considered and efficiency expectations noted — Agreement reasonable when entered but not at hearing — Solicitor and client fee reduced to $65,000

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-07-24 Naime v. Zadran, 2026 ONSC 4330 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Rule 2.1 dismissal — Abuse of process — Should the motion for leave to appeal be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01? — Proceeding appears on its face frivolous, vexatious or an abuse — No submissions filed in response to Form 2.1B — Robust but limited use reaffirmed, citing Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 — Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Mootness — Interlocutory adjournment order — Is leave to appeal from the May 14, 2026 adjournment order moot? — Adjournment peremptory on moving party, motion adjourned to June 18, 2026 — Filing of notice of motion for leave to appeal does not stay proceeding — No response disputing mootness — Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
  Limitation periods — Leave to appeal timelines — Extension of time — Did the moving party file late and without seeking an extension of time? — Failure to comply with applicable time limits for November 4 and December 8, 2025 orders — No explanation for delay and no motion for extension — Part of motion incapable of success — Motion for leave to appeal dismissed
• 2026-07-23 Montford v. Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine et al, 2026 ONSC 4273 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative tribunals — Judicial review
  Human rights tribunals — Procedure
• 2026-07-22 Sarpong v. Law Enforcement Complaints Agency, 2026 ONSC 3525 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Whether the Director reasonably concluded that the Trespass to Property Act authorized the demand for identifying information and the detention — Failure to grapple with central arguments and relevant evidence — Application of Vavilov, R. v. Le, R. v. Grant, R. v. Mann, R. v. Virk, and O. Reg. 400/23 — Decision unreasonable — Matter remitted for redetermination
  Administrative law — Bias — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether the Director failed to address the applicant’s allegation of investigator bias — Test from Wewaykum applied — Cell phone recordings supporting bias allegations noted — Failure to respond to a key issue renders decision unreasonable — Remittal required for consideration of bias — Decision set aside in part — Matter remitted
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Disclosure — Whether non-disclosure of officers’ notes and memoranda rendered the process unfair — Low level of procedural fairness owed to complainants confirmed — Boua and Cozzi applied — No entitlement to investigative-stage disclosure under the Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 — Procedural unfairness claim rejected — Application dismissed on this ground
  Administrative law — Police conduct review — Code of Conduct — Whether it was unreasonable to find the officers’ language not “abusive” under s. 12(1) of O. Reg. 407/23 — Distinction between abusive and insulting, disrespectful, unprofessional language — Line drawn to exclude impugned remarks found reasonable — Finding within range of acceptable outcomes — Conclusion upheld
• 2026-07-22 Smith v. Japra, 2026 ONSC 4281 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Notice of hearing — Was procedural fairness breached where the LTB did not email a notice of hearing and the tenants credibly denied receipt? — SPPA, s. 6, time place and purpose requirements — LTB Rules 5.1 and 5.2 considered — Constructive notice rejected — Appeal allowed, orders set aside, matter remitted
  Administrative law — Tribunals — Residential Tenancies Act — Interpretation of RTA s. 209(2) phrase not reasonably able to participate — Abdalla v. Koirala applied, broad participation right — King-Winton, Timbercreek, Zalzman distinguished and followed — Correctness standard on question of law — Duty to provide reasonable notice emphasized — Appeal allowed, orders set aside, matter remitted
• 2026-07-21 Valero Energy Inc. v. Minister of the Environment, 2026 ONSC 4044 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Record of proceedings under JRPA — Whether s. 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act requires a record for a challenge to a regulation — Regulation making is not a statutory power of decision under s. 1(1) JRPA — Public record filed under Evidence Act, s. 25, sufficient — No record of proceedings required — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Production — Inherent jurisdiction — Whether the Court should order production of Cabinet and Minister materials beyond the public record — Judicial review does not afford documentary discovery — r. 68 considered with CCSAGE and Auer — No presumptive entitlement to additional documents — Broad production request a fishing expedition — Production order refused — Motion dismissed with costs
  Administrative law — Reviewable decision — Statutory power of decision — Did the Minister make separate reviewable decisions under EBR s. 16(1) and MOPBA s. 27(4)? — Proposal implemented only when regulation filed under Legislation Act, 2006, EBR subs. 1(6)(c) — Decision Summary wording not determinative — Alleged statutory breaches not separate decisions — No Ministerial decision to implement regulation — Motion dismissed