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

• 2026-03-06 Martin v. The City of Mississauga et al., 2026 ONSC 1376 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Practice — Costs
• 2026-03-06 Hanif v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario et al., 2026 ONSC 1377 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Motion to strike — Rules 21 and 25 — Statutory immunity under Veterinarians Act, s. 45(1) — Does the pleading disclose a reasonable cause of action against the regulator — Bald allegations of bad faith without particulars — Collateral attack and abuse of process found — Deliberative secrecy and s. 38(2) constrain evidence — Multiple tort claims untenable — Statement of claim struck without leave
  Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment — Leave to amend — Should leave be granted where defects are fundamental and abusive — Collateral attack finding renders amendment irrelevant — Inability to particularise bad faith not curable — Same position even if amended — Discretion exercised against amendment — Leave to amend refused
  Procedure — Crown proceedings — Pre‑action notice — Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, 2019, s. 18, Ministry of Attorney General Act, s. 8(5) — Is the claim against the Attorney General a nullity for lack of 60 days’ notice — Conditional correspondence did not waive statutory requirement — Notice cannot be waived — Action commenced without notice a nullity — Claim against Attorney General dismissed
  Procedure — Motion to strike — Crown immunity — CLPA, s. 11(4) policy matter — Do allegations against the Minister disclose a reasonable cause of action — No pleaded duty, breach, causation or bad faith — Vicarious liability absent control over regulator — Oversight discretionary and immune — Claims against Minister dismissed
• 2026-03-06 Kaminskyj et al v. Shimano, 2026 ONSC 1388 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Evidence — Settlement privilege — Admissibility of settlement communications — Whether correspondence describing an “offer” and “olive branch” to resolve is privileged — Narrative justifications within settlement proposal treated as admissions for settlement only — Principles in Sable Offshore Energy Inc. v. Ameron International Corp. applied — First section admitted, settlement section excluded — Evidence excluded
  Civil liability — Nuisance — Woodstove smoke — Did use of a compliant woodstove cause substantial and unreasonable interference? — Applicants’ credibility issues and absence of expert or independent corroboration — Ordinary residential woodstove use assessed for reasonableness — Tolerance factor considered, Antrim Truck Centre, St. Lawrence Cement, Stadnyk — Substantial interference not proven — Claim dismissed
  Civil liability — Nuisance — Outdoor music — Whether listening to music while working outside during daytime amounts to nuisance — Lack of objective third party evidence and no by-law complaints — Applicants’ credibility problems — Conduct characterised as mere inconvenience or annoyance — Reasonableness under nuisance framework confirmed — Nuisance not established — Claim dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Discretionary factors — Appropriate scale and quantum after dismissal — Courts of Justice Act, s. 131(1), and Rule 57.01(1) applied — Parties’ offers to settle considered — Litigation motivated by animus and waste of resources noted — Principle of indemnity emphasised — Successful respondent entitled to costs — Costs awarded
• 2026-03-05 Anishinabeg et al. v. AGC et al., 2026 ONSC 1139 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Representative proceedings — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 12.08 — Does r. 12.08 apply to a representative action advancing s. 35 Aboriginal title and treaty claims? — Ontario courts consistently apply r. 12.08 in s. 35 matters — Western Canadian Shopping Centres and Hwlitsum cited on representative criteria — Court authorization required to bring the proceeding — Motion granted
  Procedure — Civil practice and procedure — Timing of motions — Must a r. 12.08 motion be brought at the outset or can representation be deferred to trial? — Caetano requires authorization to bring a proceeding — Deferral to trial declined given case complexity and timetable — Parties did not consent to deferral — Representation to be determined pre-trial — Motion granted
  Indigenous peoples — Aboriginal rights and title — Reconciliation and access to justice — Do reconciliation and access to justice permit dispensing with or delaying a r. 12.08 motion? — Métis Nation - Saskatchewan referenced on facilitating Aboriginal claims — Procedural requirements still apply to establish capacity to advance claims — Functional approach applies to substance, not authorization step — Motion granted
• 2026-03-05 Citti v. Klein, 2026 ONSC 1320 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil liability — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Elements and reliance — Whether deemed admissions and affidavits entitle the plaintiffs to judgment — False project brochures and non‑acquisition of identified properties — Reliance by each plaintiff established for specified investments — Citizens Bank of Canada v. Pastore applied, Samine LLC v. Digital Shovel cited — Default judgment granted for all three investments of the second plaintiff and one investment of the first plaintiff — Default judgment granted in part
  Business associations — Corporations — Directing mind attribution — Whether corporate defendants are liable for misrepresentations of the directing mind — Promotional materials and solicitations issued through corporate vehicles — Admissions that the individual was the directing mind of the corporations — Corporate liability for deceit established coextensively with individual liability — Default judgment against corporate defendants granted
  Civil liability — Damages — Punitive damages — Whether punitive damages may be awarded on a default judgment motion for egregious fraud — Knowingly false statements inducing substantial investments — Retribution, deterrence and denunciation considered — John Howard Society of Peel‑Halton‑Dufferin v. Pennock referenced — Quantum fixed at a proportion of proven losses — Punitive damages awarded
  Procedure — Default judgment — Undefended trial — Whether claims lacking pleaded reliance or evidentiary support should proceed to trial — Deemed admissions under Rules of Civil Procedure rr. 19.02, 19.05 and 19.06 considered — Elekta Ltd. v. Rodkin test applied — Portions concerning one defendant and two investments require oral evidence — Undefended trial directed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-03-06 Maplequest (Vaughan) Developments Inc. v. Primont Homes (Vaughan) Inc., 2026 ONSC 1270 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Striking pleadings — Non-compliance — Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether striking the statement of defence and counterclaim under rr. 30.08(2) and 60.12 was proportionate — Years-long pattern of delay, prevarications, defiance, last-chance peremptory order breached — Falcon Lumber, Advanced Farm Technologies, Rimon applied — No lesser remedy effective — Palpable and overriding error not shown — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — New issues on appeal — Whether the court should entertain the new argument that only the counterclaim should have been struck — Argument not raised before motion judge — Discretion exercised to consider but order not disproportionate — Case management history and repeated breaches weighed — Quickie Convenience Stores considered — New argument rejected
  Procedure — Standard of review — Appellate deference — Whether the motion judge’s discretionary order reveals a palpable and overriding error — Housen correctness and palpable and overriding error framework — Falcon Lumber deference to case management findings — Findings available on record, no misapprehension — Correct legal test applied — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Pleadings — Leave to deliver new defence — Whether the appellant should be permitted to file a new statement of defence after striking — Thrive Capital distinguished — Continuing non-compliance with last-chance order — Granting leave would undermine striking order — Proportionality and litigation history considered — Request refused
• 2026-03-06 2455379 Ontario Inc. v. MacDonald Turkey Point Marina Inc., 2026 ONSC 1224 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: writing — motion — leave — paid — dismissed
• 2026-03-04 Sayers Foods Ltd. v. Gay Company Ltd., 2026 ONSC 918 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Construction — Prompt payment adjudication — Holdback and scope — Whether “written notice of lien” is required to trigger notice holdback under s. 24(2) — Could multiple disputes raised as set‑offs convert a single “matter” into prohibited multiple matters under s. 13.5(4) — Contract certification and payment obligations applied — Adjudicator’s interpretation reasonable — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Construction Act, s. 13.18(5)5 — Did procedures accord with Part II.1 and was any prejudicial unfairness shown — Order of submissions, provision of contract under s. 13.11, timelines, complexity of set‑off delay claim considered — No identified procedural breach causing prejudice — Standard of correctness for fairness applied — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Judicial review grounds — Fraud — Construction Act, s. 13.18(5)7 — Was the determination made as a result of fraud, including alleged false statutory declarations — Evidence of unpaid subcontractors contextualised by owner’s non‑payment — No misrepresentation found to have induced decision — Fresh evidence not admitted where impermissible — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Bias — Reasonable apprehension — Did refusal to provide ZOOM recording, procedural rulings, or tone of reasons demonstrate bias — No obligation to record or release argument — Strong presumption of impartiality not rebutted — Reasons responsive and point‑first — No prejudicial unfairness established — Application dismissed
• 2026-03-04 Saltaji v. Pinnacle Uptown Six Limited Partnership, 2026 ONSC 1271 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appellate jurisdiction — Arbitration — Divisional Court jurisdiction over private arbitration — Do appeal, leave to appeal, and judicial review lie to the Divisional Court under the Arbitration Act, 1991 where appeal rights were waived? — Agreement “final and binding” precluding appeals — ONHWPA inapplicable following arbitrator’s jurisdiction ruling — Proceedings under Arbitration Act, 1991 — Proceedings quashed
  Procedure — Appeals — Effect of jurisdictional ruling — Arbitrator’s determination of governing regime — Does the arbitrator’s finding that ONHWPA s. 17(4) does not apply dictate the appeal route? — Appeal routes governed by Arbitration Act, 1991 — Grandfield Homes v. Chen and Radewych applied — Challenge must proceed, if at all, under Arbitration Act framework — Motion granted
  Administrative law — Judicial review — Availability — Private arbitration — Is judicial review available for a decision of a private arbitrator? — Judicial review not available for private decision makers — Adams v. Canada and Universal Settlements considered — Attempted judicial review characterized as collateral attack on arbitral decision — Judicial review proceeding quashed
  Procedure — Motions — Motion to quash — Proper approach where jurisdiction absent — Should proceedings be quashed when the Court lacks jurisdiction? — Jurisdiction is a binary question — If no jurisdiction, proceedings destined to fail — Davidson v. CCC 73 followed — Minimal-merit threshold inapplicable to jurisdictional defect — Proceedings quashed
• 2026-03-02 Mehedi v. Toronto Police Services Board, 2026 ONSC 942 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: leave — motion — costs — extension — awarded