Abonnez-vous aux fils de nouvelles RSS afin de consulter les décisions de la Cour supérieure de justice

• Cour supérieure de justice – Décisions récentes
• Cour divisionnaire – Décisions récentes

Cour supérieure de justice – décisions récentes

• Cineplex v. Cineworld, 2021 ONSC 8016
• Ontario v. Trinity Bible Chapel et al, 2022 ONSC 1344

• 2025-07-23 Harris v. Melo, 2025 ONSC 4152 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Partition and sale — Ownership disputes — Applicant and Respondent held undivided 50% interests in a property — Applicant sought partition and sale — Respondent opposed, claiming Applicant held her interest in trust for him — Should an order for partition and sale be granted? — Joint tenants have a prima facie right to force a sale under the Partition Act unless acting maliciously, vexatiously, or oppressively
  Civil procedure — Evidence — Admissibility of affidavits — Respondent relied on affidavits of two individuals who failed to attend cross-examination — Should the affidavits be admitted? — Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits striking affidavits where cross-examination is not possible
  Property — Limitation periods — Real Property Limitations Act — Respondent claimed Applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him — Applicant argued the claim was statute-barred — Is the trust claim statute-barred? — Section 4 of the Real Property Limitations Act applies a ten-year limitation period, subject to discoverability
  Estates and trusts — Resulting trust — Constructive trust — Respondent claimed Applicant held her 50% interest in trust for him — Applicant made no financial contribution to the property purchase — Does the Applicant hold her interest in trust for the Respondent? — Presumption of resulting trust arises when one party contributes to the purchase price without taking title, rebuttable by evidence of intent to gift
• 2025-07-22 R v. Giammichele, 2025 ONSC 1090 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés:
• 2025-07-22 Nieuwenhuis v. FRP Inc., 2025 ONSC 4275 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Contracts — Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Conditions precedent — Approval Condition and Lease Condition — Whether failure to fulfill or waive conditions rendered the agreement null and void — Neither party tendered on the closing date — Parties failed to reinstate time of the essence — Agreement deemed abandoned — Governing principles from King v. Urban & Country Transport Ltd. and Malka v. Racz applied
  Lease — Residential lease condition — Agreement of Purchase and Sale conditional on execution of a lease agreement under the Residential Tenancies Act — Lease never prepared or executed — Whether failure to fulfill lease condition rendered the agreement null and void — Lease Condition deemed unfulfilled, contributing to abandonment of the agreement
  Property — Deposit — Return of deposit — Agreement of Purchase and Sale deemed abandoned — Defendant sought return of deposit after failure to close — Neither party reinstated time of the essence — Deposit of $175,000 plus interest ordered to be returned to the defendant
  Sale — Damages — Failed real estate transaction — Plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Market value of property at time of breach not established — Plaintiffs’ damages limited to $700,000 based on proposed Second Agreement of Purchase and Sale — Principles from 100 Main Street Ltd. v. W.B. Sullivan Construction Ltd. and Bang v. Sebastion considered
  Obligations — Time of the essence — Reinstatement of time of the essence — Neither party ready, willing, or able to close on the scheduled date — No notice served to reinstate time of the essence — Agreement treated as abandoned — Plaintiffs’ failure to reinstate time of the essence precluded entitlement to damages
• 2025-07-22 R. v. Christopher and Smith, 2025 ONSC 4300 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Unreasonable search and seizure — Warrantless search of vehicle interior — Police failure to obtain proper search warrant — Did the warrantless search breach the defendants' section 8 Charter rights? — Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence — Governing principles from R. v. Grant — Evidence excluded to prevent disrepute to the administration of justice
  Criminal procedure — Evidence exclusion — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Spent bullet casing discovered in vehicle — Warrantless search deemed unlawful — Police conduct characterized as negligent or wilfully blind — Did the seriousness of the Charter breach justify exclusion of evidence? — Balancing test under R. v. Grant applied
  Rights and freedoms — Section 8 Charter rights — Privacy interests in vehicles — Vehicle parked on private property — Police search without judicial authorization — Did the search undermine the defendants' reasonable expectation of privacy? — Evidence obtained through Charter breach excluded to uphold justice system integrity
  Criminal procedure — State misconduct — Police failure to review search warrant — Search warrant authorized seizure but not search of vehicle — Was the police conduct negligent or deliberate? — Seriousness of Charter-infringing conduct weighed against societal interest in adjudication on merits — Evidence excluded under section 24(2)
  Rights and freedoms — Section 24(2) Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Administration of justice — Balancing societal interest in truth-seeking with impact of Charter breach — Evidence exclusion necessary to prevent condoning of serious state misconduct — Governing framework from R. v. Grant
• 2025-07-22 Amanquah v. Oluwamuyide, 2025 ONSC 4304 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Decision-making responsibility — Sole decision-making responsibility awarded to the Mother — Evidence of communication issues, lack of trust, and differing approaches to children’s health care — Does the evidence support joint decision-making responsibility? — Best interests of the children require sole decision-making responsibility for the Mother under s.16(1) of the Divorce Act
  Family — Primary residence — Children’s primary residence awarded to the Mother in Orangeville — Evidence of the Father’s inconsistent parenting time, lack of transparency about residence, and failure to ensure medication compliance — Is it in the children’s best interests to reside primarily with the Mother? — Best interests of the children require primary residence with the Mother
  Family — Parenting schedule — Existing parenting schedule maintained — Mother sought to remove Sunday overnight visits; Father sought equal parenting time — Does the current schedule serve the children’s best interests? — Parenting schedule maintained with conditions for medication compliance and notice of missed parenting time
  Family — International travel — Mother permitted to travel internationally with children without Father’s consent — Evidence of past difficulties obtaining Father’s consent for travel — Is the Mother a flight risk? — Mother permitted to travel up to three weeks annually without consent, provided efforts are made to avoid school absences
  Family — Government documentation — Mother permitted to obtain children’s government documents without Father’s consent if he fails to cooperate within seven days — Evidence of past non-cooperation by the Father — Does the Father’s lack of cooperation justify granting this authority? — Mother authorized to act unilaterally after seven days of non-cooperation
  Family — Life insurance — Father required to maintain $250,000 life insurance policy with children as irrevocable beneficiaries — Evidence of Father’s existing policy and income — Is life insurance necessary to secure child support obligations? — Father ordered to provide proof of designation and authorization for monitoring compliance
  Family — Retroactive child support and s.7 expenses — Retroactive child support of $5,796 and s.7 expenses of $5,564 awarded to the Mother — Evidence of Father’s underpayment and failure to contribute to childcare expenses — Are the Mother’s calculations accurate? — Retroactive payments ordered based on confirmed income and prejudgment interest applied

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-07-23 Park v. Geico, 2025 ONSC 4282 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Natural justice — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Appellant alleged denial of procedural fairness due to interpreter quality and reconsideration by the same adjudicator — Did the LAT breach procedural fairness or natural justice? — Tribunal's duty to ensure fairness upheld — Standard of correctness applied to procedural fairness issues — Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Interpreter services — Appellant alleged inadequate interpretation at LAT hearing — Tribunal addressed concerns during the hearing and appellant confirmed accuracy of interpretation — Did the Tribunal's handling of interpreter issues breach procedural fairness? — No breach found as appellant failed to provide transcript evidence — Tribunal's process deemed fair
  Insurance — Income replacement benefits — Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Appellant challenged LAT's findings on ability to work and income following a car accident — Tribunal's factual findings reviewed for reasonableness — Did the LAT's decision on income replacement benefits contain unreasonable factual errors? — Tribunal's findings upheld except for immaterial income misstatement
  Evidence — Admission of new evidence — Reconsideration process — Appellant sought to introduce new evidence during LAT reconsideration — Tribunal refused to admit evidence available at the original hearing — Did the LAT err in refusing to admit new evidence? — Tribunal's refusal upheld as consistent with procedural rules
  Civil procedure — Standard of review — Appeals from Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) — Divisional Court reviewed questions of law for correctness and factual findings for reasonableness — What is the appropriate standard of review for appeals from the LAT? — Standard of review framework from Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 applied
• 2025-07-17 Maguire v. Canada et al., 2025 ONSC 4232 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Rule 2.1 — Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious claims — Motion judge dismissed claims against most defendants but allowed claims against Bayer and Johnson defendants to proceed — Whether Rule 2.1 permits partial dismissal of claims against some defendants — Court held that Rule 2.1 allows dismissal against individual defendants if claims are frivolous or vexatious — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 2.1
  Statutory interpretation — Rule 2.1 — Interpretation of “a proceeding” under Rule 2.1 — Appellants argued that the rule does not allow partial dismissal of claims — Court held that Rule 2.1 permits dismissal of claims against individual defendants while allowing others to proceed — Interpretation consistent with purpose of Rule 2.1 to protect court resources and parties from vexatious litigation
  Torts — Negligence — Vexatious litigation — Claims against Bayer defendants for harm caused by herbicides and against Johnson defendants for harm caused by acetaminophen — Plaintiff sought damages and injunctive relief, including funding for research — Court found claims to be vexatious and lacking in standing — Hallmarks of vexatious litigation identified, including prolix pleadings and unreasonable relief sought
  Child protection — Standing — Plaintiff brought claims on behalf of her children without seeking leave to act as litigation guardian — Claims against Johnson defendants for harm caused by acetaminophen ingestion — Court held that plaintiff lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of her children — Claims dismissed for lack of standing
• 2025-07-16 Ontario Association of Chicken Processors v. Ontario Broiler Hatching Egg & Chicken Commission, 2025 ONSC 4174 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Tribunal decision quashed for failing to provide adequate reasons for its findings on expert evidence — Did the Tribunal fail to meet the standard of reasonableness by not analyzing competing expert evidence? — Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 — Tribunal decision set aside and remitted for a fresh hearing
  Evidence — Expert evidence — Competing expert reports — Tribunal’s preference for certain expert evidence over others — Tribunal failed to provide sufficient analysis or explanation for its findings — Did the Tribunal err in its handling of expert evidence by failing to justify its conclusions? — Requirement for reasoned explanation in assessing expert evidence
  Civil procedure — Remedies — Judicial review — Tribunal decision quashed and remitted for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted Tribunal — Inadequate reasons provided by the Tribunal rendered the decision unreasonable — Was the Tribunal’s failure to provide adequate reasons sufficient to justify setting aside its decision? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. J.1
• 2025-07-16 Outram v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4201 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Professional discipline — Credibility assessments — Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario found appellant guilty of professional misconduct — Did the Committee err in assessing the complainant's credibility and reliability? — Tribunal failed to consider the impact of significant negative credibility findings on the complainant's overall reliability — Standard of review for findings of fact is palpable and overriding error — Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33
  Evidence — Credibility of witnesses — Complainant's testimony — Tribunal found inconsistencies in complainant's evidence regarding allegations of sexual abuse — Did the Tribunal err in failing to assess how inconsistencies affected overall credibility? — Tribunal failed to meet the standard of clear, convincing, and cogent evidence — F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53 — Stefanov v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 848
  Health — Professional misconduct — Massage therapy — Allegations of sexual abuse during treatment — Did the complainant request a glute massage, and was the evidence misapprehended? — Tribunal found non-consensual touching of glutes and thighs but no touching of genitals — Tribunal's findings overturned due to flawed credibility analysis
  Civil procedure — Appeals — Remitting matters for re-determination — Divisional Court has a complete record to resolve the dispute — Should the matter be remitted to the Discipline Committee? — Court declined to remit due to delay and lack of special advantage — Pourshian v. Walt Disney Co., 2021 ONSC 4840
• 2025-07-16 Mulders v. Baggia, 2025 ONSC 4207 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Plaintiffs/respondents successfully opposed defendants/appellants' motion to extend time to appeal — Should the plaintiffs/respondents be awarded partial indemnity costs? — Costs presumptively awarded to the successful party on a partial indemnity scale unless exceptional circumstances exist — Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied
  Evidence — Affidavits — Cross-motion to strike — Plaintiffs/respondents brought a partially successful cross-motion to strike portions of the defendants/appellants' affidavits — Should the court consider divided success on the cross-motion when determining costs? — Divided success considered but outweighed by overall success of the plaintiffs/respondents
  Statutory interpretation — Rules of Civil Procedure — Costs — Factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — What factors should guide the court in fixing costs? — Timekeepers, hours spent, and rates charged reviewed for reasonableness — Costs fixed at $17,081.81 payable forthwith