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

• 2026-08-18 Guttin v. Creber et al., 2026 ONSC 4507 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Costs — Mixed success in oppression proceedings — Entitlement and quantum of costs following mixed success in oppression applications — Respondents more successful on the majority of issues with only one act of oppression found — Receiver-manager refused and sale directions ordered — Costs to follow the event on a partial indemnity basis — Costs fixed at $50,000 to respondent and $50,000 to corporate respondents
  Procedure — Costs — Settlement offers and conduct — Whether settlement offers and litigation conduct should affect costs — Respondent corporations’ offers to settle noted and applicants unnecessarily prolonged litigation — Disputes that drove the litigation decided in respondents’ favour — Court assesses overall success and fairness under Rule 57 — Costs fixed at $50,000 to respondent and $50,000 to corporate respondents
  Procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity and proportionality — Fixing costs on a partial indemnity basis under Rule 57 and Boucher — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131 and r. 57.01 applied — Boucher v. Public Accountants Council relied on reasonable expectations and fairness — Respondents’ partial indemnity costs within range given complexity and volume — Costs fixed at $50,000 to respondent and $50,000 to corporate respondents
  Procedure — Costs — Prior motions — Treatment of costs for prior motions when parties did not address them — Costs of earlier motions, including audited financial statement, were reserved and time included in bills — Parties did not address allocation of those motions — Court fixes global costs guided by r. 57.01(7) simplest process — Costs fixed at $50,000 to respondent and $50,000 to corporate respondents
• 2026-08-18 6751067 Canada Inc. v. 16002731 Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 4754 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Good faith and honest performance — Duty of honest performance breached by silence? — Vendor knew tenant had terminated before waiver and stayed silent — Silence that knowingly creates or perpetuates a false impression regarding income — C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger applied — Purchaser justified in refusing to complete — Forfeiture claim undermined by dishonest performance — Deposit returned
  Contracts — Caveat emptor and conditions — Does caveat emptor bar relief where vendor misleads? — Caveat emptor does not permit knowingly misleading performance — Inspection condition addressed physical and environmental matters only — Discretionary condition cannot be exercised capriciously per Tse v. Sood — Lack of financing condition not determinative — Vendor’s silence dishonest — Forfeiture claim dismissed
  Procedure — Summary judgment — Rule 20, Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether genuine issue requiring a trial — Hryniak v. Mauldin framework applied — Record permits fair and just determination — Proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive — Necessary findings made on affidavits and documents — Summary judgment granted
  Contracts — Deposits in failed real estate transactions — Entitlement to forfeit deposit after failed closing — Whether vendor may retain $150,000 deposit — Material change to rental income known to vendor and withheld — Purchaser’s refusal to close justified by breach of honest performance — Ordinary right to retain deposit displaced — Deposit returned
• 2026-08-18 Maestra v. Blue Line Distribution Limited et al., 2026 ONSC 4784 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Default judgment — Service and notice — Whether default judgment can proceed without service of the Motion Record — Right of defendants to contest damages under r. 19.05 engaged — Uncertainty regarding service on dissolved corporations under Business Corporations Act, s. 242(2) — Motion adjourned without prejudice
  Procedure — Simplified procedure — Monetary jurisdiction — Whether r. 76 monetary cap bars damages sought — Claimed damages exceed $200,000 exclusive of interest and costs under r. 76.02(1) — No authority provided to award beyond r. 76 or to continue under ordinary procedure — Motion adjourned without prejudice
  Procedure — Venue and transfer — Case conference — Whether action commenced in the wrong county under r. 13.1.01(2) — Transfer considered under r. 13.1.02 having regard to enumerated factors — Plaintiff directed to convene a case conference under r. 50.13 to determine venue — Motion adjourned without prejudice
  Evidence — Affidavit evidence on default judgment — Hearsay — Whether hearsay and exhibits prove unliquidated damages on r. 19.05 motion — Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin and r. 19.06 require admissible proof beyond deemed admissions — Content of exhibits not sworn evidence per Katz v. Katz and related authorities — Motion adjourned without prejudice
• 2026-08-17 Burkay v. Walker, 2026 ONSC 4744 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Separation agreement — Arbitration clause — Whether separation agreement requires arbitration — Parties agreed to staged dispute resolution culminating in arbitration — Secondary arbitration clause binding despite future-formalities gap — Parties directed to execute compliant family arbitration agreement under FLA and O. Reg. 134/07 — Parenting disputes to proceed by arbitration — Proceeding stayed in favour of arbitration
  Statutory interpretation — Family arbitration — Family Law Act, s. 59.6 — Does non-compliance with O. Reg. 134/07 invalidate a secondary arbitration agreement? — Distinction between validity of agreement and enforceability of award — Regulatory requirements to be satisfied before recognition of award — Interpretation favours giving effect to agreement to arbitrate future disputes — Secondary arbitration clause upheld
  Procedure — Stay of proceeding — Arbitration Act, 1991, s. 7 — Whether to stay the application in respect of matters agreed to be submitted to arbitration — Exception under s. 7(2) on invalid agreement considered and rejected — Court orders parties to proceed to arbitration and execute compliant agreement — Application stayed
  Procedure — Precedent — Horizontal stare decisis — R. v. Sullivan applied — When may a judge depart from a coordinate-court decision? — Lopatowski treated as governing authority — Conflicting cases, Horowitz, Magotiaux, Monteiro, distinguished or not followed — Coordinate-court precedent followed
  Procedure — Costs — Family Law Rules, r. 24(3) — Fixing costs following successful stay motion — Reasonable expectation of adverse costs assessed given complexity and duration — Substantial indemnity claim reduced to a fair amount — Costs fixed at $15,000
• 2026-08-17 Bourque/Chima v. Public Service Alliance Of Canada et al, 2026 ONSC 4761 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Labour and employment — Jurisdiction — Internal union discipline — Whether Superior Court has jurisdiction over suspensions and reinstatement — Application of the Labour Relations Act s. 190(1) mandatory inquiry and strong privative clause — Court adopts Pileggi and Fraser and defers to the Labour Board — Actions dismissed
  Labour and employment — Characterisation of dispute — Union disciplinary process — Essential character found to be breaches of natural justice and procedural fairness — Allegations include bias, delay, confidentiality breaches and unprecedented sanctions — Defamation tied to disciplinary communications not determinative of forum — Court lacks jurisdiction
  Statutory interpretation — Federal Public Sector Labour Relations Act — s. 188(b), (c) — Does “discriminatory” encompass procedural unfairness and bias in discipline — Veillette and Skinner support broad ambit including natural justice concerns — Complaints to be assessed on merits by the Labour Board under s. 188 — Exclusive jurisdiction of Labour Board affirmed
  Procedure — Rule 21.01(3)(a) — Interlocutory relief — Clear or plain and obvious lack of subject matter jurisdiction test applied — Adequate remedies before the Labour Board include reinstatement and compensation under s. 192(1) — Interlocutory injunction inappropriate once jurisdiction declined — Injunction not heard

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-08-17 Huynh v. Security National, 2026 ONSC 4759 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Evidence — Appeals — Fresh evidence — R. v. Palmer test — Does the proposed evidence bear on a decisive issue? — Appeal limited to questions of law under Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, s. 11(3) — Insurer examination report and adjuster’s log notes relevant only to factual determinations — Irrelevance to legal error analysis — Fresh evidence not admitted — Motion for fresh evidence dismissed
  Administrative law — Statutory appeals — SABS benefits — Was the adjudicator required to accept uncontradicted medical evidence and an OCF-3? — Burden under SABS, s. 5(1) to prove substantial inability and essential tasks — Discretion to weigh evidence affirmed, Dooman v. TD Insurance cited — Failure to file OCF-18s and detailed medical records — No legal error — Appeal dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Reconsideration — Was it unfair for the same adjudicator to determine reconsideration? — LAT Rule 18.1 permits reconsideration by the same member — Reconsideration corrective, not de novo, Warren v. Ontario cited — Adjudicator engaged with arguments and refused reweighing — No breach of procedural fairness established — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-08-13 OPSEU v. The Crown, 2026 ONSC 3926 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness under Vavilov — Was the arbitrator’s application of issue estoppel reasonable — Penner test engaged for overlapping MOL inspector orders and grievance — Deference to labour arbitrator’s balancing of finality and fairness — Parallel proceedings analysed in context — No basis to intervene — Application dismissed
  Labour and employment — Grievance arbitration — Collective agreement interpretation — Do Articles 2 and 9 impose obligations beyond the OHSA — Same question precondition satisfied under Penner — Arbitrator found CBA merely incorporates OHSA duties — Union identified no distinct contractual obligation or remedy — Grievance overlap with inspector’s orders established — Application dismissed
  Workplace health and safety — Occupational Health and Safety Act — Mandatory reporting — Effect of s. 51 OHSA on parallel proceedings — Did mandatory reporting preclude a grievance process — Inspector’s orders under s. 57 examined and final — Appeal to OLRB under s. 61 not pursued — Duplicative litigation avoided where issues coincide — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Issue estoppel — Residual discretion — Danyluk factors and potential injustice — Did the arbitrator properly refuse to forgo estoppel — Prior process fair and comprehensive — Memorandum addressing ongoing OHSA compliance considered — No real injustice shown by Union — Judicial economy and consistency prioritised — Application dismissed
• 2026-08-12 Donegani v. Facebook, Inc., 2026 ONSC 4657 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Class actions — Class definition — Whether the proposed class definition was workable and supported by some basis in fact — Litigation plan and Master Class List considered under CPA s. 5(1) — Overinclusive and underinclusive membership concerns noted — Assumption of acceptable definition without deciding — Appeal dismissed
  Contracts — Class actions common issues — Breach of contract — Whether breach of contract could be certified as a common issue under the CPA — Rumley guidance on overly general questions applied — PIPEDA and standard form contract terms addressed as common — Individual inquiries required to determine breach for each class member — Appeal dismissed
  Contracts — Remedies — Disgorgement for breach of contract — Whether disgorgement could be determined as a common issue — Atlantic Lottery principles on exceptional disgorgement applied — Adequacy of compensatory damages not determinable in common given pleaded losses — Common issue on disgorgement refused — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Class actions — Preferable procedure — Whether a class proceeding was the preferable procedure under the CPA — No evidence of compensatory loss identified in record — Behaviour modification through regulatory proceedings considered — Manageability and judicial economy weighed with deference on appeal — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-08-11 Shahnematollah-Yazde v. Registrar, Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002, 2026 ONSC 4586 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Unpleaded issue and credibility findings — Whether the Tribunal breached fairness by resting misconduct on Jason’s authority and declining to resolve whether a meeting occurred or the bill of sale was signed — Allegation inherent in NOP examined — Decision on narrower dispositive basis permissible — Vavilov applied — Liability findings upheld
  Administrative law — Sanctions and reasons — Adequacy of reasons for penalty — Whether sanctions, including two‑year all‑Canada lien prohibition, were connected to misconduct — Reasons too general to permit appellate scrutiny — Conflict in findings on isolation and severity noted — Penalty decision owed no deference — Sanctions varied to time completed
  Administrative law — Appeals — Findings of fact — Whether SUV finding absolving appellants should be disturbed — Tribunal accepted perpetrator’s evidence that he acted alone using Service Ontario familiarity — Housen palpable and overriding error standard applied — Finding open on the record — SUV finding undisturbed
  Administrative law — Regulatory remedies — Cross‑appeal seeking revocation — Whether revocation required and whether considering effects on employees was an error — Evaluative exercise on public interest recognised — Practical consequences relevant though not determinative — Sanctions already at high end on record — Cross‑appeal dismissed
• 2026-08-11 Maghnam v. Maghnam, 2026 ONSC 4651 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Stays pending appeal — RJR‑MacDonald test — Should a stay pending appeal be granted — Low merits threshold met but appeal weak — Presumptively correct order considered, serious issue not frivolous — Factors assessed together per Ducharme v. Hudson — No basis to suspend order pending appellate review — Motion for stay dismissed
  Family — Matrimonial home — Sale and possession — Should the sale order be amended to allow occupancy — Sole ownership and possessory and consent protections under Family Law Act ss. 19, 21, 23 — Listing, cooperation and case management directed — Appellant to reside during listing subject to maintaining sale‑ready condition and carrying costs — Sale process amended
  Procedure — Stays pending appeal — Irreparable harm — Did refusal of a stay cause irreparable harm — Constructive trust and unjust enrichment attach to preserved sale proceeds in trust — Medical evidence insufficient to show inability to move — Mahr‑related entitlement unpled and weak on present record — Harm largely compensable — Irreparable harm not established — Stay refused
  Procedure — Stays pending appeal — Balance of convenience — Does the balance of convenience favour a stay — Comparative prejudice weighed, Respondent’s ongoing financial hardship and children’s needs accepted — Status quo not equitable — Preservation of proceeds mitigates prejudice to Appellant — Sale to proceed while claims continue to trial — Balance of convenience favours Respondent — Stay denied