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

• 2025-08-18 DiBlasi v. DiBlasi, 2025 ONSC 4763 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Costs — Partial success — Wife partially successful in determining valuation date and extending limitation period — Husband acted in bad faith, misrepresented marital status, and failed to make Offers to Settle — Should the wife be awarded costs, and if so, in what amount? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, ss. 18, 24
  Family — Offers to Settle — Reasonableness — Wife made five Offers to Settle, none of which were as favourable as the trial outcome — Husband made no Offers to Settle — Does the husband's failure to make Offers to Settle and his unreasonable conduct impact the costs award? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, ss. 18, 24
  Family — Bad faith — Husband acted in bad faith by knowingly misrepresenting facts and prolonging litigation — Court found husband's conduct unreasonable and awarded costs to the wife — Should bad faith conduct result in a costs award on a full or partial recovery basis? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, s. 24(10)
  Civil procedure — Costs — Proportionality — Court considered proportionality and reasonableness in awarding $100,000 in costs to the wife — Should the court apply proportionality principles when assessing costs in family law litigation? — Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, s. 24(14)
• 2025-08-15 2682283 Ontario Ltd. v. Mumby, 2025 ONSC 4731 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Municipalities — Smoke and vape by-laws — Joinder of charges — Application for certiorari — Municipal prosecutor sought joinder of 14 charges under Durham Region Smoke and Vape By-Law — Justice of the Peace granted joinder application — Whether the JP’s decision was within jurisdiction — Section 38(1) of the Provincial Offences Act permits joinder where the ends of justice require it — Decision upheld as within jurisdiction and consistent with the interests of justice
  Statutory interpretation — Provincial Offences Act — Section 140(1) — Limited scope of review — Certiorari applications under the POA — Whether the JP’s decision to grant joinder was reviewable — Section 141(4) restricts relief to cases of substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice — Review limited to jurisdictional errors, not correctness of rulings — Application dismissed as no substantial wrong occurred
  Evidence — Natural justice — Prosecutor’s factum — Affidavit evidence — Applicant argued JP relied on unsworn evidence in prosecutor’s factum — JP found sufficient information in the factum and Informations to decide joinder motion — Prosecutor’s factum deemed credible as submitted by an officer of the court — No breach of natural justice found
  Civil procedure — Certiorari — Extraordinary remedy — Interlocutory appeals — Applicant sought certiorari to quash JP’s joinder order — Certiorari available only in rare cases under the POA — No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice demonstrated — Application dismissed to preserve trial integrity and avoid fragmentation of proceedings
• 2025-08-15 Torres v. Parsons et al., 2025 ONSC 4593 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Property — Ownership and proceeds of sale — Partition and sale — Dispute over ownership and distribution of proceeds from the sale of a jointly occupied property — Applicant held 99% title, Respondents held 1% — Whether Respondents entitled to a greater share of proceeds — No enforceable agreement or unjust enrichment found — Proceeds distributed according to title — Partition Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.4.
  Contracts — Agreements regarding property ownership — Alleged oral agreements prior to and after property purchase — Whether enforceable agreements existed regarding ownership and proceeds of sale — No meeting of minds or essential terms established — Agreements contingent on future events (marriage) that did not occur — Bawitko Investments Ltd. v. Kernels Popcorn Ltd. principles applied.
  Obligations — Unjust enrichment — Corresponding deprivation — Respondents claimed unjust enrichment due to mortgage payments and household contributions — No deprivation found as Respondents’ expenses were consistent with prior rental costs — No enrichment as Applicant bore significant financial burden, including down payment and property taxes — Moore v. Sweet test applied.
  Property — Proprietary estoppel — Claim of reliance on representations regarding property ownership — Respondents alleged detrimental reliance on Applicant’s representations — No evidence of detriment or unconscionable conduct by Applicant — Doctrine of proprietary estoppel not applicable — Schwark v. Cutting principles applied.
• 2025-08-15 Monteith & Sutherland v Novex Insurance, 2025 ONSC 4697 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Coverage — Land surveying services — Applicant sought indemnification for settlement of a claim arising from deficient land surveying work — Does the subject matter of the Halton Claim fall within the policy’s coverage? — Governing principles of insurance contract interpretation applied — Policy language unambiguous — Claim found to fall within coverage
  Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Policy periods — Notice of claim — Applicant received notice of claim during one policy period but notified insurer during a subsequent period — In which policy period does the Halton Claim fall? — Policy language interpreted to determine applicable period — Claim deemed to fall in the period when the applicant first received notice
  Insurance — Professional liability insurance — Duty to co-operate — Breach of duty — Respondent alleged applicant failed to co-operate in the defence of the claim — Did the applicant breach its duty to co-operate sufficient to vitiate coverage? — Substantial breach required to vitiate coverage — No substantial breach found — No evidence of prejudice to the insurer
• 2025-08-15 City of Mississauga v. PSCC No. 1136 et al, 2025 ONSC 4711 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Municipalities — Nuisance Gathering By-law — Public safety — Interim statutory injunction — Interim quia timet injunction — Large-scale gatherings at Ridgeway Plaza — Public safety risks from overcrowding — Enforcement of municipal by-laws — Should the court grant injunctive relief to enforce compliance with the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Municipal Act, 2001, SO 2001, c. 25, s. 440 — Courts may grant injunctive relief to restrain by-law contraventions in the public interest
  Statutory interpretation — Municipal Act, 2001 — Interim statutory injunction — Past contraventions of municipal by-laws — Ongoing violations — Can injunctive relief be granted against corporate respondents based on past contraventions of the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Breach of by-law must be ongoing to support injunctive relief — Limited discretion to deny injunctions in exceptional circumstances
  Statutory interpretation — Quia timet injunction — Future contraventions of municipal by-laws — Public safety risks — Should the court grant a quia timet injunction to prevent future contraventions of the Nuisance Gathering By-law? — Test for interlocutory injunctions under RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General) — Courts may grant quia timet injunctions to address imminent harm
  Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Freedom of association — Peaceful assembly — Public safety — Interim injunctions limiting Charter rights — Does the balance of convenience justify limiting Charter rights to enforce municipal by-laws? — Charter rights are not absolute and must be balanced against public safety concerns — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(d)

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-08-15 Edusei v. Philips, 2025 ONSC 4723 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Jurisdiction — Application for judicial review seeking compensatory and punitive damages — Divisional Court does not have jurisdiction to award damages in judicial review proceedings — Does the application fall outside the jurisdiction of the Divisional Court? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2(1) — Ling v. Justice of the Peace Review Council, 2021 ONSC 1182
  Statutory interpretation — Judicial Review Procedure Act — Scope of relief available — Applicant sought damages in judicial review application — Divisional Court’s jurisdiction limited to remedies under section 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act — Does seeking damages in judicial review constitute an abuse of process? — Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1, s. 2(1)
  Civil procedure — Frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Abuse of process — Application dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 — Applicant failed to address jurisdictional issues or provide sufficient details of decisions being challenged — Does the application meet the threshold for dismissal under Rule 2.1.01? — Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, r. 2.1.01 — Gao v. Ontario (Workplace Safety and Insurance Board), 2014 ONSC 6100
  Evidence — Sufficiency of pleadings — Applicant failed to identify specific decisions or provide dates and details of alleged misconduct — Application dismissed for lack of clarity and failure to meet procedural requirements — Does the absence of specific evidence render the application deficient? — Wang v. Canada, 2025 ONSC 4261
• 2025-08-14 McCready v. Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2025 ONSC 4696 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Landlord and Tenant Board — Extension of time to appeal — Tenant sought to appeal Board's decision terminating tenancy due to arrears — Whether justice of the case required granting an extension of time — Test for extension of time includes bona fide intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice to responding party, and merits of appeal — Lack of merit sufficient to deny extension — Enbridge Gas Distribution v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131 applied
  Civil procedure — Extension of time — Tenant filed appeal materials 2.5 weeks late due to medical treatment and family bereavement — Landlord conceded no prejudice caused by delay — Whether tenant met test for extension of time — Bona fide intention to appeal and acceptable explanation for delay established — Lack of merit in appeal sufficient to deny extension — Enbridge Gas Distribution v. Froese, 2013 ONCA 131 applied
  Lease — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Subsection 83(6) — Tenant argued Board failed to consider landlord's obligation to negotiate during COVID-19 pandemic — Board considered history of arrears and multiple breached repayment agreements — Board not required to consider broader pandemic impacts — No error of law found — Jackson v. Capobianco, 2017 ONSC 3324 applied
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Bias — Tenant alleged unconscious bias by Board due to disability — Board provided detailed reasons for decision, including substantial arrears and history of breached agreements — No factual basis for bias claim — Procedural fairness not breached as tenant participated in hearing and did not request accommodations at the time — High threshold for bias not met
• 2025-08-13 Ilic v. Canadore College, 2025 ONSC 4611 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Academic decisions — Procedural fairness — Applicant challenged the College's decision to refuse completion of a Respiratory Therapy Program — Did the College act unreasonably or breach procedural fairness in making the decision? — Standard of review of reasonableness applied — Deference to academic decisions of public colleges unless manifest unfairness or unreasonableness is demonstrated
  Health — Education — Academic programs — Clinical placements — Applicant failed to meet clinical competencies in neonatal and pediatric rotations — Did the College fail to provide reasonable accommodations for the applicant's disabilities under its policies and the Human Rights Code? — College's decision upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Rights and freedoms — Procedural fairness — Internal academic appeals — Applicant alleged unfairness in the College's refusal to accept an appeal of the decision to withdraw him from the program — Did the College breach procedural fairness by failing to accept the applicant's appeal? — College's enforcement of appeal deadlines upheld as reasonable and procedurally fair
  Civil procedure — Judicial review — Delay — Extension of time — Applicant filed for judicial review seven months after the decision, beyond the statutory 30-day period — Should the court extend the time for judicial review? — Court declined to address the issue as the application was dismissed on the merits
• 2025-08-11 Gashaw v. Riddell, 2025 ONSC 4614 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs — Partial indemnity costs — Appellant sought partial indemnity costs for appeal — Respondent argued costs should be reduced or denied due to partial success and simplicity of issues — Whether Appellant entitled to costs and in what amount — Successful party entitled to costs unless exceptional circumstances exist — Rule 57.01 factors applied — Costs of $5,764.38 awarded to Appellant
  Civil procedure — Costs — Impecuniosity — Respondent argued financial circumstances should preclude costs award — Respondent provided limited evidence of financial situation, including receipt of Ontario Works — Whether impecuniosity should affect costs award — Court must balance financial hardship with objectives of cost awards, including indemnification and deterrence — Insufficient evidence of impecuniosity provided — Costs awarded despite Respondent’s financial circumstances
  Civil procedure — Costs — Motion before Deputy Judge — Appellant sought costs for motion to set aside noting in default — Deputy Judge dismissed motion, later overturned on appeal — Whether costs for motion should be awarded — Motion considered an indulgence — Costs for motion denied as it should have been granted without costs
• 2025-08-08 Sloat v. Grand Erie District School Board, 2025 ONSC 4460 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Mootness — Reconsideration decision eliminated sanctions but left findings of misconduct intact — Amendments to the Education Act removed the Board's jurisdiction over conduct complaints — Does the reconsideration decision or legislative amendments render the application moot? — Judicial review not moot where findings of misconduct have ongoing practical effects on applicant's rights
  Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 2(b) — Freedom of expression — Applicant alleged that the Board's decision infringed her Charter rights under s. 2(b) — Whether the Board's decision improperly limited the applicant's freedom of expression — Charter values must be balanced with statutory objectives — Standard of review is reasonableness
  Evidence — Procedural fairness — Investigation report — Board failed to provide the applicant and trustees with the investigator's report, relying instead on a PowerPoint summary — Whether the failure to disclose the report breached procedural fairness — Legitimate expectation that the report would be disclosed — Procedural fairness breached where exculpatory information may have been withheld
  Rights and freedoms — Reasonableness of decision — Trustee Code of Conduct — Board found applicant breached confidentiality and other provisions of the Code — Investigator unable to conclude that confidential information was disclosed — Whether the Board's decision was reasonable in light of the evidence — Decision quashed for lack of factual basis and procedural fairness