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

• 2026-05-07 Eastwood-Fisher v. Equine Canada et. al., 2026 ONSC 2721 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Labour and employment — Wrongful dismissal — Reasonable notice — Assessment using Bardal factors — Whether four months’ notice is reasonable for short service director — Employment Standards Act minimums acknowledged, common law notice fixed — Health context considered without creating standalone factor — Salary and value of benefit package during notice awarded — Summary judgment on notice granted
  Procedure — Summary judgment — LTD entitlement — Rule 20.04(1) and 20.04(2)(b) — Whether LTD coverage and disability entitlement can be determined on a paper record — Credibility conflicts and nuanced evidentiary issues identified — Hryniak v. Mauldin framework applied — Necessary factual findings not possible on motion — Summary judgment on LTD claim refused
  Insurance — Group benefits — Long term disability — Whether coverage persisted during notice and whether plaintiff is totally disabled within policy terms — Interpretation of “own occupation” and “any occupation” provisions — Employer liability for equivalent benefits if coverage lapsed raised — Competing communications and policy wording require trial findings — Issues remitted to trial, no LTD determination on motion
• 2026-05-07 Wei v Ontario, 2026 ONSC 1782 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Crown liability — Leave to proceed — Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, s. 17 — Whether plaintiffs showed a reasonable possibility of success — Screening test requires plausible analysis and credible evidence — Bad faith required for regulatory decisions — Leave granted for misfeasance in public office — Leave refused for misconduct by a public authority and negligence — Costs borne by each party — Leave partly granted
  Evidence — Affidavits — Hearsay and information and belief — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 39.01(4) — Whether affidavits contained inadmissible hearsay and unsourced assertions — Reuters article and circular sourcing given no weight — Portions of affidavit disregarded where sources unspecified — Some facts accepted after cross‑examination confirmation — Credibility and reliability assessed on leave motion — Portions disregarded
  Civil liability — Misfeasance in public office — Bad faith — Whether serious carelessness permits inference of bad faith — Failure to follow up RBC warnings and to use statutory powers examined — Licensing despite OSC ban considered — Elements including recklessness and awareness of likely harm addressed — Odhavji Estate and Meekis cited — Leave granted
  Civil liability — Negligence — Duty of care — Whether regulator owed investors a private duty — Cooper v Hobart applied to MBLAA framework — Public duty and policy considerations negate proximity — No specific interactions with plaintiffs to ground duty — Williams distinguished — No reasonable prospect of success on duty element — Leave denied
• 2026-05-06 R. v. Blackwood, 2026 ONSC 2111 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Criminal and statutory offences — Controlled drugs offences — Constructive possession — Circumstantial evidence and Villaroman standard — Did the Crown prove possession for the purpose of trafficking? — Knowledge and control inferred from documents, paraphernalia and access to unit — Reasonable doubt on handgun and ammunition under mattress — Breach of release order not proven — Convictions entered on drug counts, other counts acquitted
  Rights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Grant framework applied — Should the seized drugs, gun and ammunition be excluded under s. 24(2)? — Temporal link to breaches but no causal connection — Seriousness moderate, impact significant, societal interest strong — Final balancing favours inclusion — Evidence admitted
  Rights and freedoms — Right to counsel — Implementation — Did police fail to implement s. 10(b) at hospital and before strip search? — Voicemail to counsel not followed up, delayed access until post strip search — Policy required consultation absent safety concern — No legitimate safety basis shown — Charter breach found
  Rights and freedoms — Arbitrary detention — Reasonable and probable grounds — Did arrest for failing to comply with a release order violate s. 9? — CCTV identification unreliable, hearsay from security disregarded — Terms of release order unknown, grounds not objectively reasonable — Arrest for stolen property justified — Charter breach found
  Evidence — Business records — Canada Evidence Act, s. 30 — Is the lease and tenant card admissible as business records? — Property manager described unit file practices, historical records maintained — Subss. 30(1) and 30(6) applied to admit documents — Records linked the accused to the unit — Records admitted
• 2026-05-06 Paradigm Change Consulting Inc. v Boparai, 2026 ONSC 2382 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Civil contempt — Amendments to notice of motion — Whether leave should be granted to amend the notice of motion in a civil contempt proceeding — Factors from Rocca Dickson applied, including prejudice, timing, and clarification — New particulars arose from cross-examinations and third‑party disclosure — Efficiency and access to justice considerations — Leave to amend granted
  Procedure — Civil contempt — Particulars and service — Should the contempt motion be struck for lack of particulars or improper service? — Fair notice provided through motion materials and undertakings chart — Strictissimi juris considered with Carey v Laiken and Tan-Jen — Personal service under r. 60.11(2) addressed, notice through counsel sufficient — Motion to strike dismissed
  Evidence — Affidavits — Post cross‑examination affidavits — Whether leave should be granted to deliver affidavits after cross‑examination on affidavits — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 39.02(2) applied — Relevance assessed with R v Candir, records received after cross‑examinations — No non‑compensable prejudice, defendants’ own documents — Leave to file affidavits granted
  Procedure — Adjournments — Mareva injunction context — Should the motions be adjourned due to lack of funding for legal fees? — Discretion guided by Khimji and Ariston, balancing parties and administration of justice — No findings on undisclosed assets, delay in seeking funding order — Scheduling certainty prioritised — Adjournment refused
• 2026-05-06 Pestell v. Wiles, 2026 ONSC 2553 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Parenting time — Best interests — Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24 — Whether overnights with the father should be added to equalise parenting time — Weight given to OCL report and observational visits — Stability and reduced transitions favoured — Joint decision-making already ordered — Child found happy and comfortable with both parents — Shared parenting ordered
  Family — Child support — Shared parenting — Whether child support should be calculated on a table-offset basis with 50 percent time — Parties’ agreement to offset confirmed — Full table amount no longer appropriate — Income offset method applied consistent with equal parenting time — Net support fixed as per draft order — Table-offset support ordered
  Family — Parenting conditions — Substance use and safety — Whether to impose restrictions on alcohol and illicit drugs and require safety equipment — Absolute abstention from illicit drugs required — Alcohol permitted only to an exceedingly moderate degree with targeted driving and boating limits — Clarification on life jackets and helmets for activities — Parenting safeguards tailored — Targeted alcohol restriction and safety measures ordered

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-05-06 Du Carmur v. Sickinger, 2026 ONSC 2715 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Court management — Rule 2.1 dismissal — Dismissal under r. 2.1 only in the “clearest of cases” — Should the proceeding be dismissed under r. 2.1 at this stage — Proposed leave motion not an abuse of process — Registrar notice given and considered — Proceeding to move forward with reasonable promptness — r. 2.1 dismissal refused
  Procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Motion to extend time to bring leave motion — Whether late filing should be excused — Arguable basis for the request for an extension identified — Extension motion to be heard in writing with the leave motion — Timetable set under the Practice Direction — Extension motion to panel, timetable ordered
  Procedure — Appeals — Leave to appeal interlocutory decision — Interlocutory decision dismissing summary judgment motion — Whether proposed leave motion is an abuse of process — Bar is high to obtain leave to appeal an interlocutory order — Merits not determined on r. 2.1 — Leave motion permitted to proceed to panel — Leave motion to proceed
  Procedure — Stays — Pending appeal — Underlying litigation not stayed pending the leave motion or the underlying appeal — Whether proceedings below are stayed automatically — Parties directed to proceed notwithstanding appellate steps — Case management emphasised for prompt progress — Stay refused
• 2026-05-05 Atkinson v. Economical, 2026 ONSC 2605 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Tribunal reconsideration — SPPA and LAT Rules — Whether the LAT could issue a second reconsideration decision while appeal and judicial review were pending — Rule 18.5 “reasonable time” requirement applied — Functus officio and finality principles engaged — Chandler and CBC v. Manitoba considered — Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to reopen — September 12, 2025 decision quashed and matter remitted
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Natural justice — Admission of expert report without cross-examination — Whether relying on a challenged expert report without permitting cross-examination breached procedural fairness — Plante v. Economical Insurance Company followed — Error of law found by LAT adjudicator — Original and first reconsideration decisions cannot stand — Decisions quashed and new hearing before different adjudicator ordered
  Procedure — Costs — Appeals and judicial review — Whether costs of the LAT appeal and judicial review should be awarded and against whom — Costs rarely awarded against tribunals and not justified on these facts — Insurer preserved position on admissibility requiring proceedings — Quantum reduced for partial success — Costs of $15,000 all inclusive awarded against insurer
  Procedure — Costs — Judicial review on consent — HRTO decisions quashed on consent — Whether Applicant entitled to costs of the HRTO application — Costs generally not awarded for or against tribunals — Respondents successful on request to avoid directions fettering HRTO — Applicant’s costs denied — Costs of $1,500 to each respondent group awarded, inclusive
• 2026-05-04 Winegardner v. Ontario Labour Relations Board et al, 2026 ONSC 2580 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions reviewed under Vavilov — Did the Board act reasonably in dismissing the duty of fair representation application and reconsideration request? — Coherent reasons consistent with governing case law — Factual matrix understood — Application on judicial review dismissed
  Labour and employment — Unions — Duty of fair representation — Labour Relations Act, 1995, s. 74 — Did the union meet its duty when withdrawing the grievance? — Fair, objective and due consideration given — Limited right to be wrong from Switzer applied — Exhaustive investigation not required — Board’s acceptance reasonable — Application dismissed
  Labour and employment — Unions — Conflict of interest — Whether union representative’s alleged conflict established bad faith or discrimination — Allegation not properly pleaded before the Board — Correspondence appended but no material facts — Reconsideration an impermissible attempt to relitigate — No reasonable apprehension of bias disclosed — Bias allegation unsubstantiated — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reconsideration — New issues — Whether human rights discrimination could be raised on reconsideration — Bald assertion devoid of material facts — No exceptional circumstances to permit new issues — Record lacked facts showing disability or nexus to termination — Board’s determination reasonable — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Reasons — Sufficiency of reasons — Whether Board used boilerplate language — Justification, transparency and intelligibility required under Vavilov — Reasons coherent and consistent with case law — No obligation to address every submission — Reasons sufficient in statutory and factual context — Application dismissed
• 2026-05-04 GD Construction & Project Management Inc. v. Kiya Sunrise Electrical Ltd., 2026 ONSC 2643 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appeals — Small Claims Court — Appeal from judgment issued after pleadings struck — Appellate standard of review under Housen v. Nikolaisen applied — Jurisdiction under Courts of Justice Act, ss. 21(2)(b), 31(a) — Error of law in functus officio approach — Judgment set aside and matter remitted for new trial — Appeal allowed with condition
  Procedure — Trial management — Functus officio — Whether trial judge could revisit striking of pleadings when circumstances changed mid-trial — Authority to reconsider interim rulings affirmed, citing Quadrangle v. AG Canada and Montague v. Bank of Nova Scotia — Discretion required when late party arrives — Deputy Judge erred in law — New trial ordered
  Procedure — Default judgment — Striking pleadings — Principles for setting aside order striking defence and proceeding by assessment — Late attendance and default of production order considered — Options available included adjourning, standing down, limiting defences, or permitting cross-examination and submissions — Procedural fairness required — Judgment set aside
  Procedure — Interim relief — Payment into court — Should appeal be allowed conditional on payment of impugned amount into court — Delay primarily attributable to appellants and continuing non-compliance with production order noted — Security for respondents pending retrial justified — Conditional order imposed — Appeal allowed on condition
  Procedure — Costs — Small Claims appeal — Costs for first trial and appeal — Fault of appellant’s paralegal acknowledged yet respondents’ counsel encouraged procedurally unfair decision — Amounts in issue considered — No costs ordered for first trial or appeal — No costs ordered
• 2026-05-01 Fuentes v. Fuentes, 2026 ONSC 2441 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: all-inclusive — temporary — writing — motion — leave