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

• 2025-10-29 2246733 (2010) Ontario Ltd. v. Gandhi et al, 2025 ONSC 6088 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Procedural directions — Document production — Litigation timetable — Dispute over sufficiency of affidavits of documents — Should deficiencies in document production be addressed before or after discoveries? — Court directed a process to address deficiencies before discoveries if necessary — Balancing efficiency and fairness in litigation management
  Evidence — Document production — Affidavits of documents — Defendants’ obligation to produce complete affidavits — Whether incomplete affidavits justify early intervention before discoveries — Court emphasized compliance with procedural rules and timeliness in document production
  Civil procedure — Scope of court orders — Application of orders to specific defendants — Whether an order requiring maintenance of funds in trust accounts should apply to all defendants or only to specific groups — Court clarified that the order applied only to the Mayfield Defendants, not the Gandhi Defendants, based on the motion record and parties’ consent
  Statutory interpretation — Interpretation of court orders — Meaning of “maintain” in the context of trust accounts — Whether the order required defendants to deposit additional funds or only to preserve existing funds — Court held that “maintain” did not require new deposits, only preservation of existing funds — Context and transcript of prior proceedings supported this interpretation
• 2025-10-29 R. v. Singh, 2025 ONSC 4875 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Criminal infractions — Fraud over $5,000 — Uttering a forged document — Sentencing — Proportionality — Denunciation — Deterrence — Offenders convicted of fraud and forgery related to mandatory entry-level training for Class A licences — What is the appropriate sentence for the offenders? — Principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence applied under section 718 of the Criminal Code
  Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Concurrent versus consecutive sentences — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Offences arising from the same fraudulent scheme — Should the sentences be served concurrently or consecutively? — Sentences imposed concurrently as offences were part of the same transaction and protected the same legal interests
  Transportation — Forfeiture — Offence-related property — Fraud involving truck driver training — Forfeiture of three trucks used in the commission of fraud — Should a forfeiture order be issued under section 490.1 of the Criminal Code? — Forfeiture order issued as trucks were integral to the fraudulent scheme and proportional to the offence
  Criminal infractions — Conditional sentences — Section 742.1 of the Criminal Code — Fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document — Are the conditions for a conditional sentence met? — Conditional sentence imposed with strict house arrest and community service, meeting the requirements of section 742.1 and addressing denunciation and deterrence
• 2025-10-28 R v. Amandeep Singh, 2025 ONSC 5997 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Citizenship and immigration — Deportation — Immigration consequences of guilty plea — Appellant, a foreign national, pleaded guilty to theft over $5,000 — Deportation under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, ss. 36(1)(a), 64(1) — Was the appellant’s guilty plea uninformed due to lack of awareness of deportation and inability to appeal? — Knowledge of possible deportation sufficient for informed plea — Case-by-case analysis of collateral consequences
  Criminal procedure — Guilty plea — Validity — Appellant sought to withdraw guilty plea, alleging it was uninformed — Whether plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed — Test for informed plea includes awareness of legally relevant collateral consequences — Immigration consequences as legally relevant collateral consequences — R. v. Wong, R. v. Girn applied
  Evidence — Fresh evidence on appeal — Appellant and trial counsel filed affidavits regarding advice on immigration consequences — Crown cross-examined both — Fresh evidence admitted as highly relevant to issues on appeal — Credibility of appellant’s claim assessed against objective circumstances — R. v. Evans, R. v. Wong applied
  Professional responsibility — Duty of trial counsel — Immigration advice — Trial counsel advised appellant to seek immigration legal advice but did not confirm on record — Lack of written instructions or waiver regarding immigration advice — Whether trial counsel’s actions rendered plea uninformed — Best practices for counsel in cases with immigration consequences — R. v. Trought discussed
• 2025-10-28 Chijindu v. Law Society of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 6046 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 — Dismissal of frivolous or vexatious proceedings — Application dismissed as duplicative and a collateral attack on prior decisions — Does Rule 2.1.01 allow dismissal of proceedings without a full hearing? — Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure interpreted robustly to prevent misuse of court resources
  Professional responsibility — Relitigation — Multiple proceedings — Applicant sought to overturn revocation of legal license through repeated litigation — Does relitigation of issues already decided constitute an abuse of process? — Doctrine of abuse of process prevents relitigation to uphold judicial economy, consistency, and finality
  Professional responsibility — Vexatious litigation — Improper purpose — Applicant pursued duplicative proceedings and persistent appeals — Does bringing proceedings with no reasonable expectation of success constitute vexatious litigation? — Characteristics of vexatious litigants include rolling forward issues and persistent pursuit of unsuccessful appeals
  Constitution — Charter remedies — Sections 15(1) and 24(1) — Applicant alleged racial discrimination and denial of access to court — Does Rule 2.1.01 preclude Charter claims from being heard on their merits? — No inherent right to a hearing on Charter claims where proceedings are frivolous, vexatious, or a collateral attack
• 2025-10-28 Yang v. Xie, 2025 ONSC 6052 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Family — Costs in family law proceedings — Presumptive entitlement to costs — Applicant successful in trial regarding the date of separation — Should the applicant be awarded costs for the trial of the issue? — Rule 24(3) of the Family Law Rules presumes costs entitlement for the successful party, subject to fairness and proportionality considerations
  Family — Disbursements — Costs award in family law — Applicant sought recovery of disbursements for the entire proceeding — Should the costs award include disbursements incurred for the entire proceeding? — Disbursements not awarded as they were not clearly linked to the trial of the issue, without prejudice to future recovery
  Family — Scale and quantum of costs — Partial indemnity versus substantial indemnity — Applicant sought costs on both partial and substantial indemnity bases — What is the appropriate scale and quantum of costs? — Costs fixed at $30,000 plus HST, reflecting fairness, proportionality, and reasonable expectations of the parties

Cour divisionnaire - Décisions récentes

• 2025-10-29 The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs v. Minister of Public Affairs and Business Delivery and Procurement, 2025 ONSC 5477 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Administrative law — Judicial review — Standard of review — Reasonableness — Director’s decision under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Whether the Director’s interpretation of the Act was reasonable in concluding that the University of Windsor was not engaging in business — Framework for assessing reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65
  Rights and freedoms — Discrimination — Academic boycotts — University agreements with student groups — Provision limiting institutional academic agreements with Israeli universities — Whether the agreements violated the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Purpose of the Act to prevent discrimination in business relationships — Interpretation of “engaging in business” under the Act
  Statutory interpretation — Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Section 4(1)3(ii) — Whether the provision in the agreements constituted a discriminatory business practice — Interpretation of “refuse or fail to employ or promote” under the Act — Whether the provision impacted employment or promotion of Israeli academics or University faculty — Contextual and purposive approach to statutory interpretation
  Statutory interpretation — Public academic institutions — Whether the University of Windsor’s actions fell within the scope of “engaging in business” under the Discriminatory Business Practices Act — Application of Beauchamp v. North Central Predators AAA Hockey Assn., 2005 — Preponderant purpose test for determining business activity
• 2025-10-28 Taylor v. Freeman, 2025 ONSC 3760 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Mareva injunction — Legal test — Appellants appealed an order requiring $4,000,000 from property sale proceeds to be paid into court — Did the motion judge err in applying the general test for interlocutory injunctions instead of the stricter Mareva injunction test? — Test for Mareva injunction includes strong prima facie case, risk of asset dissipation, and undertaking as to damages — Motion judge’s failure to apply correct test rendered the order invalid
  Lease — Commercial lease — Joint venture — Dispute over characterization of agreement between property owners and business operators — Respondents claimed joint venture agreement; appellants argued simple lease — Did the respondents establish a strong prima facie case for their claim? — Lack of documentary evidence undermined respondents’ claim of financial contributions and joint venture agreement
  Property — Rule 45.02 — Specific fund — Respondents sought payment into court under Rule 45.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — Did the motion judge err in granting relief under Rule 45.02? — Rule 45.02 applies only to claims involving a specific fund or constructive trust — Respondents’ claim for damages did not meet this requirement
  Civil procedure — Delay — Interlocutory injunction — Obligation to advance proceedings — Respondents failed to advance their case after obtaining a Mareva injunction — Should the motion judge have addressed the delay in proceedings? — Courts emphasize the need for prompt advancement of cases where interlocutory relief is granted
• 2025-10-27 Halkiw v. Lavin, 2025 ONSC 6048 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease — Termination of tenancy — Good faith — Landlord served N13 Notice to terminate tenancy for conversion to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board found landlord acted in bad faith, motivated by tenant’s prior success in obtaining Residential Tenancies Act protections — Whether landlord’s intent to convert unit was genuine — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(a)
  Lease — Permits for conversion — Landlord sought to terminate tenancy to convert unit to commercial use — Landlord and Tenant Board required evidence of permits or exemption from permits under section 73(1)(b) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether Board erred in requiring proof of permits for a commercially zoned unit — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, ss. 50, 73(1)(b)
  Lease — Utilities — Procedural fairness — Landlord claimed unpaid utility charges under tenancy agreement — Landlord and Tenant Board failed to address utility claim in its decision — Whether failure to rule on utilities breached procedural fairness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg 194, Rule 61.08
  Administrative law — Procedural fairness — Consistency of tribunal decisions — Landlord argued Landlord and Tenant Board failed to follow findings from prior decision regarding unit’s commercial zoning and live/work use — Whether Board’s decision was inconsistent with prior ruling — Standard of review for procedural fairness is correctness — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, s. 210; Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33
• 2025-10-27 Ashley Manor Housing Corporation v. Malcolm, 2025 ONSC 6056 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Lease — Residential Tenancies Act — Timeliness of appeal — Tenant sought to appeal a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) decision to the Divisional Court — Appeal filed outside the 30-day limit under section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 — Whether the appeal was out of time — Section 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act governs the time limit for appeals to the Divisional Court
  Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Repeated review requests — Tenant filed multiple requests to review the same LTB order, contrary to Rule 26.18 of the LTB Rules of Procedure — Whether repeated review requests constituted an abuse of process — Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal of frivolous or vexatious proceedings
  Civil procedure — Self-represented litigants — Procedural compliance — Tenant argued unfamiliarity with court rules as a self-represented litigant — Whether self-represented status entitled the Tenant to leniency in procedural compliance — Self-represented litigants must comply with procedural rules despite lack of legal training
  Civil procedure — Extension of time to appeal — Tenant's appeal dismissed as untimely — Court outlined factors for granting an extension of time, including intention to appeal, explanation for delay, prejudice to the respondent, merits of the appeal, and justice of the case — Rule 37.12.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure governs motions for extension of time
• 2025-10-24 Gaya v Gaya, 2025 ONSC 5842 (CanLII)
  Mots-clés: Civil procedure — Costs — Leave to appeal — Motion for leave to appeal a costs order dismissed — No submissions on costs filed by any party — Should leave to appeal a costs order be granted? — Governing principles for granting leave to appeal costs orders applied — Leave to appeal denied as no error in principle or misapprehension of facts was demonstrated
  Civil procedure — Costs — No costs ordered — Motion for leave to appeal costs order dismissed — Should costs be awarded in the motion for leave to appeal? — No submissions on costs filed by the parties — No costs ordered in the motion