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

• 2026-04-14 FCA US LLC v. ZF Chassis Modules (Windsor) Inc., 2026 ONSC 2201 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Costs — Party-and-party — Costs presumptively follow the event — Whether costs on a partial indemnity basis or higher degree — Court had jurisdiction simpliciter to embark upon the proceeding — No reprehensible conduct found — Costs fixed at an amount fair, reasonable, and proportional — All-inclusive figure determined — Costs fixed at $80,000 all inclusive
  Procedure — Costs — Elevated indemnity — Whether a higher degree of indemnity is warranted — No basis for enhanced costs where conduct not reprehensible — Proceeding could have continued if clause not enforced — Reference to Mars Canada Inc., para. 43 — Partial indemnity scale applied — Elevated indemnity refused
  Procedure — Costs — Foreign counsel fees — Can US counsel time for drafting affidavits be recovered — Not licensed to practise law in Ontario, not assessing under Solicitor’s Act — Boucher v. Public Accountants Council applied to fairness between litigants — Reasonable partial indemnity value allowed for initial collection of evidence and drafting — US counsel time valued, partial indemnity amount allowed
  Procedure — Costs — Scope of recoverable work — Whether costs cover the entire proceeding where merits addressed — Delivering full material answering the evidence on the merits was reasonable — Potential reuse in US proceedings left to the US court — Reimbursement for costs of the entire proceeding permitted — Costs for full proceeding allowed
  Procedure — Costs — Quantum and urgency — Urgent weekend motion justified higher preparation time and extra lawyer bodies — Ontario counsel rates within market norms, time reasonable — Fair, reasonable, and proportional amount fixed for the unsuccessful party to pay — Partial indemnity value of $20,000 allowed for affidavits — Partial indemnity quantum set as reasonable
• 2026-04-13 Crevier v. Ronkay Management Inc., 2026 ONSC 2195 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Class actions — Settlement approval — Approval under Class Proceedings Act, 1992, s. 29 — Were the settlement terms fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the class? — Arm’s length negotiations mediated by a judge, liability challenges from Fire Marshal report, heating allegations considered — Access to justice, judicial economy and behavioural modification achieved — Gordon v. 837690 Ontario Limited applied — Settlement approved
  Procedure — Class actions — Counsel fees — Whether a 25 percent contingency fee plus disbursements and taxes should be approved — Smith Estate v. National Money Mart Co. factors applied, risk and complexity assessed, results achieved — Contingency presumptively valid where understood and accepted, Cannon v. Funds for Canada Foundation — Typical range confirmed, Baker (Estate) v. Sony BMG — Counsel fees and disbursements approved
  Procedure — Class actions — Distribution plan — Should the distribution, including the residual balance to Pro Bono Ontario, be approved despite an objection and a different preference by a representative Plaintiff? — Notice given, no opt outs, one objection without reasons — Residents and visitors classes addressed, administration by class counsel approved — Ancillary orders, honoraria and administration fee approved — Distribution plan approved
• 2026-04-13 Kamrani-Ghadjar v. Anaergia Inc., 2026 ONSC 2014 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Class actions — Certification — Preferable procedure under CPA, s. 5(1)(d) — Whether the Primary Market Subclass’s financial outlook misstatement claim should remain certified — Denial of leave on secondary market claim only one factor per Bayens — Primary market claim not reliance-based, class action manageable — Decertification or summary judgment more appropriate — Claim remains certified
  Procedure — Orders — Settling order — How should the order be settled — Model Order applied, no importing of reasons into disposition — Rules of Civil Procedure, r 59.04(7), settling not for new relief — Class period includes November 9 tied to financial outlook — Common issues wording unchanged — Plaintiff’s draft order approved
  Procedure — Motions — Clarification — Should the court clarify its findings on the safe harbour defence — Paragraph referencing safe harbour defended outcome — Settling the order not a forum to confirm findings of fact — No clarification of whether assumptions were reasonable post‑IPO — Clarification refused
  Procedure — Costs — Class proceedings — Was the plaintiff the successful party or was there divided success — Overall success, not issue‑by‑issue accounting — Certification granted, leave granted, summary judgment dismissed — Distinction from DALI and Rahimi, agreement on costs respected — Costs fixed in favour of the plaintiff
• 2026-04-10 Valencia v. Juhasz, 2026 ONSC 1943 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Spousal support — Interim order — Divorce Act, s. 15.2 — Whether interim spousal support should be ordered and at what SSAG range — Principles from Moge and Carrubba-Gomes applied to temporary relief — Recipient’s needs and payor’s ability to pay considered — Misconduct excluded by s. 15.2(5) — Mid-range under SSAG selected — Temporary spousal support ordered
  Family — Spousal support — Income imputation — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19(1)(a) — Should income be imputed to the applicant on intentional unemployment? — Onus on payor to establish evidentiary basis per Kohli and Drygala — Age, long absence from workforce, limited skills assessed — No basis to impute full-time minimum wage — Imputation of income refused
  Family — Spousal support — Retroactive support — Kerr v. Baranow factors — Should retroactive spousal support be ordered on an interim motion under r. 14 of the Family Law Rules? — Needs, payor conduct, delay and hardship acknowledged — Inadequate evidentiary record for multi‑year retroactivity — Determination deferred to trial — Retroactive support claim dismissed without prejudice
  Family — Spousal support — Health care benefits — Order to maintain dependent medical, dental and extended health coverage — Whether employer group plan coverage for the applicant should be required — No evidence of available coverage or plan terms after re‑partnering — Insufficient record to assess appropriateness — Health benefits request dismissed without prejudice
• 2026-04-10 Kachra v. OPSEU Pension Trust, 2026 ONSC 2092 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Discovery — Non-party examination — Rule 31.10 leave — Should leave be granted to examine a non-party with relevant information? — Inability to obtain information from the defendant established — Fairness requires examination before trial — No undue delay or unreasonable expense — Reliance on Din v. Melady and Kissoon v. Aviva Insurance — Leave to examine non-party granted
  Procedure — Discovery — Confidentiality constraints — Does a non-disclosure agreement bar an examination under Rule 31.10? — Defendant refused to waive NDA and would not obtain or deliver information — Non-party willing to testify — Actual or constructive refusal found — Famous Players distinguished — Rule 1.04 supports just, expeditious determination — Examination ordered despite NDA — Leave to examine non-party granted
  Labour and employment — Wrongful dismissal — Moral and punitive damages — Are other employee complaints about the manager’s behaviour material to the damages claims? — Defendant’s knowledge of complaints and response in issue — Harassment, bullying and reprisals alleged — Complaints central to moral and punitive damages pleaded — Relevance and materiality established — Leave to examine non-party granted
  Procedure — Costs — Motion — How should costs of the motion be awarded? — Parties agreed that the unsuccessful party would pay a fixed amount — No costs outlines filed — Court declines to deviate from Rule 31.10(3) and (4) — All-inclusive sum ordered payable within specified time — Costs awarded to plaintiff

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2026-04-13 Sergovich v. Trinca, 2026 ONSC 1620 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Procedure — Dismissal for delay — Armstrong test — Whether Motion Judge erred in finding no substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible despite inordinate and inexcusable delay — Presumption of prejudice arising from delay addressed — Pleadings and complete solicitor’s files considered sufficient to permit a fair trial — Decision confined to unamended Statement of Claim — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Delay motions — Prejudice — Was the presumption of prejudice rebutted and was actual prejudice established from the loss of viva voce evidence of the deceased solicitor — Reliance on Baramnick significant bearing threshold — No evidentiary foundation that oral testimony would add to documents — No proof of actual prejudice established by appellant — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Appeals — Standard of review — Housen v. Nikolaisen applied — Errors of law reviewed for correctness and factual or mixed findings for palpable and overriding error — Findings on inordinate delay, rebuttal of prejudice, and actual prejudice upheld — No palpable or overriding error demonstrated — Appeal dismissed
  Procedure — Costs — Leave to appeal costs and post‑judgment interest — Courts of Justice Act, s. 133(b) stringent test for leave — Commencement of interest under s. 129(1) tied to date costs are due — Quantum and timing assessed for proportionality and reasonableness under r. 57.01(1) — No error in principle and not plainly wrong — Leave to appeal costs refused
• 2026-04-10 Rahman v. Hamami, 2026 ONSC 1991 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Practice — Motion for leave to appeal — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 2.2
• 2026-04-10 Contardi v. Contardi, 2026 ONSC 1992 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: all-inclusive — writing — payable — motion — leave
• 2026-04-10 12792761 Canada Inc. v. White, 2026 ONSC 1993 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: all-inclusive — writing — payable — motion — leave
• 2026-04-10 Medcalf v. Carr, 2026 ONSC 1994 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Practice — Costs