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

• 2026-01-08 Wilson-Dick v. Bond et al., 2026 ONSC 161 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Examinations for discovery — Scope and refusals — Whether Plaintiff must answer refusals and undertakings relevant to the pleadings — Rule 31.06 relevance and Rule 29.2.03 proportionality applied — Ontario v. Rothmans summarised — Orders to obtain RBC mortgage file, appraisal, mediator file, and family court record — Compelled answers directed — Defendants’ motion granted
  Evidence — Privilege — Solicitor‑client privilege and deemed undertaking — Whether privilege or confidentiality bars disclosure of counsel’s file and mediation materials — Litigation privilege expires with underlying proceeding, Blank v. Canada — Deemed undertaking under Rule 30.1, Kitchenham cited — Non‑privileged relevant documents to be produced, privilege asserted in Schedule B — Production compelled in part
  Procedure — Examinations for discovery — Continuation and follow‑up — Whether re‑attendance is required to complete discovery after undertakings and improper refusals — Senechal v. Muskoka emphasising completion and follow‑up rights — Continuation ordered within fixed timeline to address answers provided — Re‑examination on arising issues directed — Continuation of discovery ordered
  Procedure — Civil procedure — Pre‑trial scheduling and documentary disclosure — Whether Court should direct a pre‑trial date and permit supplemental affidavit — Rules 48 and 50.02 govern pre‑trial scheduling — Ongoing disclosure under Rule 30.07 renders order unnecessary — Plaintiff’s requests for undertakings deemed satisfied refused — Costs fixed under Rule 57.01 — Plaintiff’s motion dismissed and costs awarded
• 2026-01-08 Dean v. McDonald, 2026 ONSC 155 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appeals — Security for costs — Order sought under Rules of Civil Procedure — When should security for costs be ordered on appeal — Language of r. 61.06(1) permissive, broad discretion retained — Purpose not to prevent hearing on merits — Protective function emphasized — Interests of justice considered — Motion dismissed, no order as to costs
  Procedure — Appeals — Security for costs criteria — Rules of Civil Procedure, rr. 61.06(1), 56.01(1)(c) — What are the criteria for ordering security for costs on appeal — Unpaid costs order a sufficient precondition but not determinative — Requirement of justness inquiry reaffirmed — Discretionary framework applied — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Frivolous and vexatious — Whether appeal is frivolous and vexatious and appellants have insufficient assets — Standard requires both elements under r. 61.06(1)(a) — Appeal not taken to annoy or embarrass respondent — Insufficient assets not established — Threshold not met — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Quantum of security — Proper purpose and quantum of security for costs on appeal — Protection for costs incurred and to be incurred required — Amount sought tied to disputed unpaid rent, not costs — No estimate of appeal costs provided — Quantum not grounded in costs factors — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Discretion — Whether interests of justice warrant security despite unpaid costs order — Unpaid 2023 costs order established but not a prima facie right — Court steps back to assess justness in all circumstances — Motion aimed at recovering monies rather than protection — Motion dismissed, no order as to costs
• 2026-01-07 Le Groupe Jean Coutu (PJC) Inc. v. Helene Lauzon Pharmacy Ltd., 2026 CanLII 218 (ON SC)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Mandatory injunction — Whether strong prima facie case applies — Characterisation of relief as requiring defendants to do something — RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada, Canadian Broadcasting Corp. applied — Requests would compel operation as a Jean Coutu pharmacy or deliver up possession — Strong prima facie case required — Motion dismissed
  Contracts — Franchises — Rescission and disclosure — Arthur Wishart Act — Whether change to the MOI Points Program was a material change requiring financial disclosure — TDL Group considered — Issues regarding sign maintenance and AI Circulaire reserved for trial — Strong likelihood of success not shown on law and evidence — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Irreparable harm — Whether harm not susceptible to damages — Metropolitan Stores cited — Detailed financial records and sales histories permit calculation of lost profits — Alleged goodwill loss in Alexandria unsupported — Damages an adequate remedy given franchise network data — Irreparable harm not established — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Interlocutory injunctions — Balance of convenience — Whether greater harm from granting or refusing — Defendants would have to cease Pharma Choice operations and dispose, reacquire inventory — Plaintiff’s losses readily calculable from extensive financial information — Balance favours defendants — Injunction refused — Motion dismissed
• 2026-01-06 Leduc v. Rioux, 2026 ONSC 92 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Anti‑SLAPP — Courts of Justice Act, s. 137.1 — Whether the defamation proceeding arises from expression on a matter of public interest — Substantial merit and no valid defence not shown — Public interest balancing favours protecting expression — Pointes Protection applied — Expressions before a quasi‑judicial committee and to media — Motion granted and proceeding dismissed
  Administrative law — Quasi‑judicial bodies — Immunity from civil liability — Whether the Election Compliance Audit Committee is immune from suit — SPPA governance and review by appeal or judicial review — Westlake category applied — Duplicative misfeasance claim an abuse of process given pending judicial review — TeleZone considered — Claim against Committee dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Full indemnity and elevated costs — Anti‑SLAPP presumption of full indemnity under s. 137.1(7) — Whether elevated costs warranted for municipal defendant — Principles of proportionality and reasonableness, Rule 57.01, Boucher v. Public Accountants Council — Local tariffs and significance of issue considered — Full indemnity to resident defendant and elevated lump sum to municipality awarded
  Civil liability — Defamation — Qualified privilege and absolute privilege — Whether statements about election finance concerns were defamatory — Communications to committee protected by absolute privilege, application protected by qualified privilege — Media statements substantially true or fair comment, WIC Radio cited — In context of independent audit and committee decisions — Defamation claim dismissed
• 2026-01-06 Connelly v. Garito, 2026 ONSC 96 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Costs and interest — Prejudgment interest — Whether prejudgment interest should be awarded under the Courts of Justice Act — Residential property action for negligent construction and negligent misrepresentation with a mixed result — Chart calculating interest from commencement accepted — Rates under the Courts of Justice Act applied — Judgment thereafter subject to post-judgment interest — Prejudgment interest awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Whether Rule 49.10 entitles the plaintiff to substantial indemnity costs after the offer to settle — Plaintiff exceeded offer at trial, defendants made no offer — No circumstances warrant departure from Rule 49.10 — Partial indemnity to offer date, substantial indemnity thereafter — Costs awarded
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum and reasonableness — Whether claimed hours, rates, and disbursements are fair and reasonable under Rule 57.01 and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act — Allocation between partial and substantial indemnity assessed — LSO Transaction Levy disallowed — Postage and courier allowed for service on self-represented defendants — Costs fixed

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-01-08 Royal Credit Services Inc. v. Ontario (Minister of Finance), 2026 ONSC 115 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — Whether Decision to take no further action under the Memorandum of Understanding was reasonable — Vavilov reasonableness requirements applied — CRA’s interpretation that the MOU does not cover taxpayer’s inconsistent filings accepted — Reasons transparent, intelligible and justified on the record — Application dismissed
  Taxation — Provincial allocation of income — Double taxation — Does the MOU apply when each province accepts the taxpayer’s own filing position? — Operational Context requires a party’s proposal to change the allocation formula — No proposal to change by either province for 2011 — MOU inapplicable where inconsistency stems from taxpayer filings — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Duty of fairness — Was there a breach for not disclosing CRA and Revenu Québec communications and for a Director-level agreement? — Baker factors considered — Written process adequate, no requirement to address every argument, intergovernmental discussions permissible — No unfairness established — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Jurisdiction — Judicial review forum — Does the Divisional Court have jurisdiction where the CRA acted as agent for the Minister under Ontario legislation? — Provincial actor exercising statutory powers accepted — Federal agency decisions generally not reviewable, but agency role here attributed to Minister — Jurisdiction confirmed
• 2026-01-07 Economical Insurance Co. v. Abou-Gabal, 2026 ONSC 42 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Whether ongoing advocacy for persons with autism by the adjudicator created a reasonable apprehension of bias — Test from Committee for Justice and Liberty affirmed with Yukon and Wewaykum — Presumption of impartiality considered — Ongoing post‑appointment advocacy found sufficient to raise apprehension — Appeal granted, matter remitted
  Administrative law — Tribunal practice — Recusal and disclosure — Whether failure to raise bias at the hearing barred the allegation — Party not expected to research adjudicator in advance — Adjudicator self‑disclosure process noted — Timing not dispositive and no tactical delay established — LAT’s contrary conclusion rejected — Appeal granted, matter remitted
  Administrative law — Remedies — Effect of appearance of bias — What remedy applies once a hearing is tainted by an appearance of bias — Entire decision declared void and new hearing required — Matter remitted to LAT before a different adjudicator — Costs awarded to the successful party — Appeal granted, matter remitted
• 2026-01-06 Rahimi v. Lafonte, 2026 ONSC 105 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Appeals — Leave to appeal from consent order — Whether s. 133(a) Courts of Justice Act requires leave to appeal an LTB consent order where consent is disputed — Consent orders from the LTB not appealable without leave — Authorities including Arnold v. Lulu Holdings Inc. applied — Leave required notwithstanding challenge to consent — Appeal quashed
  Procedure — Abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 summary dismissal — Whether appeal may proceed where parties seek to circumvent leave to appeal and extension of time requirements — Process aimed at clear cases on the face of pleadings — Frivolous, vexatious or abusive proceeding identified — Rule 2.1.01 engaged — Appeal quashed
  Procedure — Appeal periods — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 s. 210 — Do serial requests to review LTB review orders extend or suspend the 30‑day appeal period — Multiple reviews of the same order do not extend time — Final LTB decision not appealed within statutory period — Extension motion required — Appeal quashed
  Procedure — Stays — Statutory stay pending appeal — Effect of quashing the appeal on the stay of the LTB eviction order — Termination of statutory stay confirmed on dismissal — Arnold v. Lulu Holdings Inc. followed — Eviction order no longer stayed — Appeal quashed and stay terminated
• 2026-01-05 Marcelo v. Personal Insurance Co., 2026 ONSC 19 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Interventions — Leave to intervene — r. 13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Whether leave to intervene as a friend of the Court should be granted — Test of useful contribution without causing injustice or prejudice — Criteria from Animal Justice v. Ontario, applied — Requirement for useful and different submissions per R. v. McGregor — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Interventions — Duplicative submissions — Whether the proposed intervener’s perspective is adequately represented — OTLA’s proposed factum overlaps substantially with the appellant’s factum — Overlap on principles of statutory interpretation, nature of the SABS, and the specific interpretive issue — Parties will provide all required assistance — Motion dismissed
  Procedure — Practice directions — Non-compliance — Whether the motion should not be heard due to process failings — Non-compliance with the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings noted — Failure to deliver and upload a notice of motion or motion record — Request not to hear the motion declined, responsibility flagged for future — Request to not hear motion declined
• 2026-01-02 United Association of Canada v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, 2026 ONSC 18 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Reasonableness — BOSTA relevance — Whether failure to consider the Building Opportunities in the Skilled Trades Act, 2021 rendered the decisions unreasonable — Decision examined as a whole under Vavilov — Tribunal expertise and construction labour relations deference emphasized — Coherent rationale for treating safety legislation as non‑determinative — Application dismissed
  Administrative law — Standard of review — Vavilov — Presumptive reasonableness — What standard and degree of deference apply to Ontario Labour Relations Board work‑assignment decisions — No correctness yardstick imposed — Decision intelligible, transparent and justified within statutory and factual constraints — Specialised tribunal interpreting its home statute — Application dismissed
  Labour and employment — Labour relations boards — Jurisdictional disputes — Labour Relations Act, 1995, s. 99 — Did the Board reasonably apply its six traditional work‑assignment factors to the installation work — Safety, skills and training neutral — Area practice weighed heavily for Labourers — Reconsideration upholding original allocation — Application dismissed