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

• 2026-07-08 Hauser v. Phalan R.C. Flying Club Inc. et. al., 2026 ONSC 3984 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Transfer and consolidation — Courts of Justice Act, s. 107 — Should Small Claims Court actions be transferred and consolidated with the Superior Court action? — Strategic “bait and switch” alleged — Integrity of Small Claims Court process emphasised — Consolidation discretion exercised rarely — Duplication of costs and prejudice considered — Transfer refused — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Stays — Courts of Justice Act, s. 107(1)(d), (e) — Should the Superior Court action be stayed pending the outcome in Small Claims Court? — Efficient and legitimate Small Claims Court process maintained — Consolidated SCC actions ordered to expedited trial — Findings to bind SCJ proceeding — Parallel proceedings and increased costs avoided — SCJ action stayed
  Procedure — Transfers — Governing test — Segura Mosquera applied — What is the test for transfers from Small Claims Court and was it met? — Onus on moving party to show mistake or that justice requires transfer — Discretion exercised rarely — Collateral purpose and abuse of process cautioned — Test not met — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Injunctive relief — Availability in Small Claims Court — Does the unavailability of injunctive relief justify transfer to the Superior Court? — Prior striking of injunctive claim noted — Accessing superior procedures not sufficient reason — Relief may be sought later if damages inadequate — Interim urgency absent — Transfer not justified — Motion dismissed
• 2026-07-08 R. v. Yusuf, 2026 ONSC 4000 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Rights and freedoms — Charter rights — Search and seizure — Facial validity of warrant — Whether ITO established reasonable and probable grounds to search residence under s. 8 — Confidential informers’ tips assessed for compelling, credible, corroborated information — Surveillance not linking residence to trafficking — Credibly based probability not met — Warrant for residence could not have issued — S. 8 breach found
  Rights and freedoms — Charter rights — Search and seizure — Vehicle warrants — Were the vehicle warrants supported by reasonable and probable grounds under s. 8? — Targeted surveillance of multiple short interactions consistent with drug transactions — Trafficking occurring out of vehicles — Information sufficient even without much CI material — Warrants for vehicles valid — No s. 8 breach for vehicles
  Evidence — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — S. 24(2) analysis — Should evidence from the residence be excluded under s. 24(2)? — Seriousness of Charter-infringing state conduct weighed, negligence found — Significant impact on privacy in dwelling — Truth-seeking favours admission but outweighed — R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34 applied — Evidence from residence excluded
• 2026-07-08 R. v. Tekhle, 2026 ONSC 3995 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés:
• 2026-07-08 First National Financial GP Corporation v. Sabourin, 2026 ONSC 4003 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Summary judgment — Rule 20 — Whether there is no genuine issue requiring a trial — Hryniak v. Mauldin applied to determine if the record permits a fair and just determination — Defendant filed no evidence and mere allegations are insufficient — Court able to make necessary findings and apply governing law — Summary judgment granted
  Security interests — Mortgage enforcement — Power of sale and possession — Whether mortgagee established right to enforce by power of sale following default — Valid mortgage, assignment by Transfer of Charge, and continuing default established — Contractual and statutory prerequisites to enforcement satisfied — Entitlement to possession after expiry of the redemption period confirmed — Judgment granted and possession ordered
  Security interests — Mortgage accounting — Standard charge terms — Whether impugned charges are authorised by the mortgage and standard charge terms — Affidavit evidence establishes charges represent expenses incurred following default — Defendant filed no contradicting evidence — Amount owing under the mortgage established with continuing contractual interest — Accounting accepted
  Procedure — Enforcement — Writ of possession — Whether a writ of possession should issue to permit enforcement if voluntary possession is not delivered — Entitlement to possession found and relief expressly sought in the pleadings — Notice and opportunity to respond afforded — Direction appropriate to enforce the order for possession — Writ of possession to issue
• 2026-07-07 Armstrong v. 571609 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONSC 3831 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Easements — Express grant — Whether the 1937 agreement created a right-of-way with adequate certainty of location — Requirement that easement be defined with adequate certainty and limited in scope — Reference to Mihaylov v. 1165996 Ontario Inc. and U.S. Steel Canada Inc. — Location not laid out or surveyed, vague descriptor only — Easement not created — Application dismissed
  Property — Easements — Necessity — Whether an easement by necessity arises where the dominant land has water access — Land must be inaccessible except by crossing servient land — Evidence of consistent water access to cottage property — Mere inconvenience insufficient to imply grant — Easement by necessity dismissed
  Property — Equitable interests — Proprietary estoppel — Does personal proprietary estoppel confer an equitable right-of-way? — Test from Cowper-Smith v. Morgan applied — No representation or assurance of a right-of-way, permissions only with restrictions — No unfairness in insisting on strict legal rights — Proprietary estoppel claim dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Road Access Act — Access road — Is the Chikopi trail a motor vehicle access route under the RAA? — Guidance from Blais v. Belanger and Kilpatrick considered — Contemporary serviceability without repair or maintenance required — Overgrown bush trail, intermittent use, clearing needed — Not turning tracks in the bush into a road — Trail not an access road — Declaration refused

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-07-06 Capreit Partnership Limited v. Ravindran et al., 2026 ONSC 3593 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease and tenancy — Above-guideline increase — Rent reduction — Whether Schedule 4 of the 2013 LTB consent order required a single rent reduction after the weighted useful life — Ordinary and grammatical meaning applied — Tenant protection focus of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 considered — Staggered reductions rejected — Review decision upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Tribunals — Appeals — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210(1) — Whether interpretation of a standard form term in an LTB order is a question of law — Standard of review for questions of law — Ledcor applied to standard form wording — Correctness standard engaged — Appellate jurisdiction confirmed — Appeal dismissed
  Statutory interpretation — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 and O. Reg. 516/06 — Requirement that an AGI order specify a single date for rent reduction under s. 129 and s. 38(1) — Does Schedule 4 provide a single reduction date from the first effective increase? — Consistency with tenant protection purpose confirmed — Single-date reduction required
• 2026-07-06 Nayyer v. Sorensen, 2026 ONSC 3939 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease and tenancy — Residential occupation — Eviction for landlord’s own use — Whether part-time residency is “residential occupation” under s. 48(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Temporary or part-time residency does not constitute residential occupation — Weekday use with weekends elsewhere found insufficient — Remedial purpose of the Act considered — Board dismissal of termination and eviction application upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Lease and tenancy — Precedents and consistency — Tribunal interpretation — Did the Board err by relying on Kohen v. Warner, 2018 ONSC 3865? — Reliance on MacDonald v. Richard and earlier authorities endorsed — Consistent Board decisions rejecting part-time residency under s. 48(1) cited — No Board decision allowing part-time use conceded — Board’s interpretation reasonable — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Statutory appeals — Questions of law — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210(1) — Whether determination of “residential occupation” on these facts is mixed fact and law — Appeals from the Board lie only on a question of law — Even if part-time occupancy could qualify, no appeal lies on mixed fact and law — Appeal dismissed without costs
• 2026-07-06 6641849 Canada Inc. v. Lakeview Sand and Gravel Ltd., 2026 ONSC 3759 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: writing — motion — leave — dismissed — costs
• 2026-07-06 El-Kasir et al v. City of Ottawa et al., 2026 ONSC 3930 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Building Code Act, 1992, s. 25(2) — Whether extension of time to appeal December 4, 2024 orders should be granted — Hussain v. Municipality of Chatham-Kent test applied — Intention and explanation accepted but merits and justice of the case lacking — Ongoing non-compliance and need for engineering assessments emphasized — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Discontinuance — Setting aside — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 59.06 — Should the Notice of Discontinuance be set aside absent new evidence? — Halterman v. Fish and Sagaz principles on finality and new evidence — Discontinuance filed in wrong forum and no new evidence identified — Setting aside would serve no practical purpose — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Jurisdiction — Statutory appeal route — Building Code Act, 1992, s. 25(1) — Does the Divisional Court have jurisdiction over the Stop Work Order appeal? — Appropriate appeal route is firstly to the Superior Court — Elbasiouni v. Brampton cited confirming forum — Proceeding vulnerable to dismissal for want of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction lacking
  Procedure — Appeals — Collateral attack — Stop Work Order — Is the appeal of the Stop Work Order a collateral attack on unappealed December 4, 2024 orders? — Appeal of Stop Work Order must follow motion to extend time to appeal in Superior Court — Unappealed orders remain operative — Sequential procedure required — Relief refused
• 2026-07-06 Polat v. Richardson et al, 2026 ONSC 3940 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Settlement and release — Easement release agreement — Did the trial judge treat the 2022 Agreement as a global release? — Agreement to Release and Abandon an Easement considered — Trial judge’s reasons focused on evidence of nuisance, not a release — No finding that rights to claim nuisance were released — No error in interpretation of scope of 2022 Agreement — Appeal dismissed on this ground
  Property — Easements — Interpretation and use of right‑of‑way — Did the trial judge apply the wrong legal framework to interpret the ROW to the waterfront and assess nuisance and trespass? — Instrument QR273607 and Plans 21R‑4460, 21R‑17756 establishing access to the Trent River — Evidence did not attribute offending conduct to the Respondents — Nuisance and trespass not established — Appeal dismissed on liability issues
  Procedure — Costs — Small Claims costs consequences — Did the trial judge err in awarding double costs and penalty costs under s. 29 Courts of Justice Act and Rules 14.07 and 19.06? — Offer to settle engaged Rule 14.07 consistently with s. 29 cap — Misapprehension of Rule 19.06 criteria for penalty — Double costs affirmed, penalty costs overturned — Appeal allowed in part on costs