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

• 2026-04-17 Beach v. Zigelstein, 2026 ONSC 2317 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Mortgage costs clause — Full indemnity — Whether standard charge term entitles a defendant to full indemnity costs — Court’s discretion to ensure fairness, reasonableness and proportionality considered — 7550111 Canada Inc. v. Charles, 2020 ONCA 505 applied — Royal Bank v. Edna Granite & Marble Inc., 2014 ONSC 3377 referenced — Contractual right to solicitor and client costs enforced — Full indemnity costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Sanctions for litigation conduct — Should substantial indemnity costs be awarded for unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, dishonesty, criminal conduct and conspiracy? — Delay and failure to address costs considered — Hordo v. Zweig, 2021 ONSC 2244 cited — Successful defendants’ reputations impugned — Simple mortgage enforcement unduly complicated — Substantial indemnity costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum — What quantum is fair, reasonable and proportionate for each successful defendant? — Hourly rates, allocation of work and hours scrutinised — Comparison of bills of costs undertaken — Rule 1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on substantial indemnity applied — Minor deduction for inadequate delineation of tasks — Costs fixed for each defendant
• 2026-04-17 Selleck v. Stanutz (Estate) et al., 2026 ONSC 2313 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Settlement agreements — Offer to settle — What are the binding terms of the accepted offer to settle — Acceptance after the specified date engaged itemised costs and substantial indemnity costs to be fixed by a Superior Court judge — Agreed waiver of specified paragraphs noted — Settlement terms confirmed
  Procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity — Are additional post-offer costs payable on a substantial indemnity basis and how should they be fixed — Inclusion of fees and disbursements in the Bill of Costs considered — Quantum to be agreed or fixed by a Superior Court judge — Post-offer costs determination pending — Costs reserved
  Procedure — Interest — Residual jurisdiction — Does the court have residual jurisdiction to award interest from the date of settlement until paid, and at what rate — Absence of a formal motion addressed — Rate of interest to be determined — Authority to award interest considered — Interest issue reserved
  Procedure — Enforcement of settlement — Interim relief — Should settlement funds be paid pending determination of additional amounts for costs and interest — Matter settled subject only to rulings on additional amounts — No justification for continuing to withhold settlement funds — Payment of settlement funds directed
• 2026-04-16 Boyko v. Boyko, 2026 ONSC 2234 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Spousal support — Interim orders — Prima facie entitlement to compensatory or non-compensatory support — Divorce Act, s. 15.2 — “Rough justice” on interim motion, needs and means emphasised — Roles showing interdependence, immediate need, and respondent’s means — Whether entitlement established at this interim stage — Spousal support ordered on a temporary basis
  Family — Spousal support — Income determination and imputation — What incomes should be determined or imputed, including access to pre-tax corporate income — Child Support Guidelines, ss. 17 and 18, Mason v. Mason applied — Three-year average used, corporate shareholder income considered — Applicant’s income set at 35,000 — Respondent’s income imputed at 878,442 — Mid-range SSAG, averaged for cohabitation dispute — Temporary support fixed
  Family — Spousal support — Retroactive support — Is retroactive spousal support appropriate at this interim stage — Short period of cohabitation and early litigation stage — SSAGs often time limited transitional support in short marriages — Amount ordered meets immediate needs, retroactive review left for trial on full record — Retroactive spousal support refused
  Procedure — Family law motions — Interim interim orders — Should the court make an “interim interim” order intended to be reviewed before trial — Temporary orders imperfect, disclosure ongoing, trials booked far ahead — Lacroix v. Meek reviewed, “without prejudice” jurisprudence considered — Order not intended to take parties to trial, review anticipated — Interim interim approach adopted
• 2026-04-16 Seferovic v. 285 Spadina SPV Inc., 2026 ONSC 2256 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Court records and endorsements — Publication on CanLII — Do errors in a CanLII-published endorsement warrant correction or affect substance — Misidentification of hearing date and counsel assessed — Motion identified as brought by applicants in oppression application — Errors characterised as inconsequential and not affecting substance — No correction required
  Public administration — Court administration — Internal processes — Will the court answer questions about internal court processes for preparing endorsements and issuing orders — Inquiries about preparation and transmission to CanLII — Questions to Commercial List Office addressed — Requests held not proper — Questions declined
  Public administration — Court administration — Publication decisions — Who decides whether endorsements receive citation numbers and are sent to CanLII for publication — Decision left to the judge making the endorsement — Unpublished endorsements available for proper use — No reason shown to publish long after release — Judge’s discretion confirmed
• 2026-04-16 Wang et al v. Jazzar Holdings Inc. et al, 2026 ONSC 2272 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Certificates of Pending Litigation — Discharge under Courts of Justice Act, s. 103(6) — Purpose of CPL and discretionary discharge described in MCAN Home Mortgage v. Broad — Threshold triable issue and equitable factors assessed — Whether the equities favour maintaining CPL — Balance of convenience favours continuation — No adequate alternative security — Motion dismissed, CPL maintained
  Procedure — Certificates of Pending Litigation — Grefford test — High probability of success in main action confirmed — Triable issue of fraudulent conveyance shown by badges of fraud — Balance of convenience and Dhunna factors considered — Whether damages are an adequate remedy — No improper purpose found — Discretion exercised against discharge — Motion to discharge CPL dismissed
  Procedure — Ex parte motions — Rule 39.01(6) full and fair disclosure — Whether material non-disclosure warrants setting aside order — Release not a material fact affecting original motion — Discovery excerpts would not change result — Court retains discretion even if non-disclosure — Alleged omissions minimally material in urgent context — CPL continued, no discharge for non-disclosure

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-04-17 Simamba v. Simamba, 2026 ONSC 2122 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: inclusive — writing — motion — leave — dismissed
• 2026-04-17 Xiao v. City of Toronto, 2026 ONSC 2283 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 — Should the proceeding be dismissed under r. 2.1 as frivolous or vexatious? — Clearest of cases threshold applied, citing Scaduto v. The Law Society of Upper Canada, 2015 ONCA 733 — Proposed judicial review relief unavailable — Court exercises r. 2.1.01(1) discretion — Proceeding dismissed under r. 2.1
  Procedure — Standing — Judicial review — Does the moving party have standing to proceed for a deceased licence holder? — Power of attorney not effective after death — Will and estate trustee status not establishing authority — Estate not properly before the Court — Standing not shown to pursue relief — Proceeding dismissed under r. 2.1
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Mootness — Is the application moot where a short-term rental licence cannot be in the name of a deceased person and is non-transferable? — Relief sought not available in proposed judicial review — Applicants directed to apply under the by-law — Extension of time unnecessary — Proceeding dismissed under r. 2.1
• 2026-04-17 Profitly Incorporated v. McRae-Yu, 2026 ONSC 2121 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Practice — Appeals — Leave to appeal — Costs
• 2026-04-17 Rogers Communications Canada Inc. v. Trueman, 2026 ONSC 2124 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: inclusive — writing — motion — leave — dismissed
• 2026-04-17 Racco v. Slimmon-Weber, 2026 ONSC 2157 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease and tenancy — Commercial lease — Quiet enjoyment — Scope of damages following unlawful termination and lockout — Whether interference with tenant’s normal and lawful use was actionable — London Prestige Ltd. v. Wellington Harlech Centre Inc. applied — Punitive and special damages maintained — Findings on harassment, lock change and repairs upheld — Damages reduced to Small Claims Court maximum — Appeal dismissed in substance
  Procedure — Appeals — Jurisdiction and scope — Small Claims Court trial on damages following Superior Court order — Did the Deputy Judge exceed the parameters of the referral or award beyond the claim? — Reasons sufficient for appellate review under Housen v. Nikolaisen — Quantum capped within monetary jurisdiction — No error in principle — Appeal dismissed on scope
  Evidence — Expert evidence — Small Claims Court — Admissibility of forensic accountant’s report under r. 18.02 — Whether accepting the report without the witness and relying on hearsay was an error — Notice, opportunity to summons, and gatekeeper role considered — Weight given to oral testimony over report — Causation and remoteness established — Admission and use of report upheld — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Procedural fairness — Judicial questioning — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether the Deputy Judge’s questions to clarify evidence breached fairness — Transcript reviewed, clarification permitted, cross‑examination preserved — No entry into the arena — Requisite level of fairness provided — Allegation of bias rejected — Appeal dismissed on fairness
  Procedure — Remedies — Prejudgment interest — Whether the start date was set in legal error — Beginning of lease used despite uncontroverted evidence of later onset of issues — Applicable principles not considered — Start date reset to when repair and interference problems began — Monetary impact minimal — Order varied on interest only — Appeal allowed in part on interest