SCJ 2026

In a CCAA restructuring involving a remote iron ore mining operation facing an immediate cash crisis before a narrow seasonal shipping window, the applicants sought approval of interim debtor-in-possession financing and a super-priority charge.

Competing secured creditor groups proposed rival DIP facilities, but the court approved the Crown lender’s DIP for the interim bridge period only, emphasizing the urgent need for operational stability, the monitor’s support, and the limited prejudice given the de novo rehearing scheduled within weeks.

The court added consultation, consent, and information protections to preserve a level playing field for the competing DIP proponents before the full return motion.

The stay of proceedings was extended, authority was granted to pay certain critical pre-filing suppliers with the monitor’s consent, and the sealing request was adjourned.

The plaintiff brought a proposed class action on behalf of over 350,000 Ontario residents whose personal health information was allegedly accessed without authorization from the COVaxON system by an employee of the defendant.

The parties consented to certification for settlement purposes and a $600,000 all-inclusive settlement fund.

Due to the infeasibility of individual distributions, the net settlement funds were to be distributed cy-près to MediaSmarts, a digital literacy charity.

The court certified the class action for settlement purposes, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable, and approved class counsel's fees of 25% of the gross recovery.

The applicant, a minority shareholder and former director, brought applications alleging oppression and constructive dismissal against the majority shareholder and the respondent corporations.

The court found the constructive dismissal claim was statute-barred and lacked merit, as the change in compensation method did not constitute a substantial breach of an essential term.

While most oppression claims regarding shareholder loans and business decisions were dismissed under the business judgment rule, the court found the majority shareholder unfairly disregarded the applicant's rights by failing to provide timely access to financial information.

The court declined to appoint a receiver-manager, instead ordering the sale of the corporation's primary real estate asset and an accounting of the proceeds.

The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for unpaid legal fees totaling $265,983.49.

The defendant was noted in default and deemed to admit the allegations in the Statement of Claim.

The court granted judgment for the principal amount but declined to award the requested prejudgment interest of 'prime + 2%' because the 'rate of prime' was undefined.

Instead, the court calculated prejudgment interest at 2% per year from 30 days after each invoice date, totaling $14,929.78.

Costs were fixed at $5,395.75 on a partial indemnity scale, and post-judgment interest was set at 4% pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.

At a case conference, the plaintiff sought to abandon his summary judgment motion following extensive new documentary disclosure by the defendants, and instead proceed to trial.

The plaintiff also indicated an intention to amend his statement of claim and file a jury notice.

The defendants argued that the motion judge should remain seized as the trial judge or at least determine the costs of the abandoned motion.

The court held that the summary judgment motion would not proceed, directed further examinations on the newly produced documents, and deferred the issues of costs and whether the motion judge should be seized as the trial judge to a later formal motion.

The landlord brought an undefended motion for default judgment against a commercial tenant for unpaid rent and damages following termination of a lease.

Applying the default judgment framework, the court held that the deemed admissions and affidavit evidence established breach of lease, quantified arrears and future rent loss, and justified recovery subject to mitigation.

The court accepted the landlord's mitigation by securing a replacement tenant and held that any challenge to mitigation had to be raised by the defaulting defendant.

Judgment was granted for $380,007.01, together with contractual pre- and post-judgment interest and costs.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order following a shootout in a café.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging that correctional staff improperly disseminated the offender's disclosure to other inmates, finding insufficient evidence.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 7 years imprisonment, but deducted 18 months to account for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

After applying Summers credit for time served, the remaining sentence was 23 months.

The applicant mortgagor challenged the respondent mortgagee's sale of her residential property under power of sale proceedings, alleging the sale was improvident and that the respondent breached her right of redemption.

The court found that the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value in a declining market, actively marketing the property and reasonably accepting the final offer.

The court also held that the applicant's request to complete a conditional sale herself did not constitute a valid tender to exercise the right of redemption.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the self-represented defendant's statement of defence for failing to pay two prior costs awards totaling $22,250.

The defendant claimed impecuniosity, citing health issues and limited income.

The court found the defendant's evidence of impecuniosity insufficient and inconsistent with his social media posts depicting a lavish lifestyle, including frequent casino visits and dining out.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding costs within 60 days, failing which the plaintiff may move without notice to strike the defence.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged touching during a private appointment with a 12-year-old complainant.

The appellant argued, among other things, that the trial judge misapprehended the timing and content of text messages that were central to the defence theory that the complainant had a motive to fabricate in order to avoid further treatment.

The appeal court held that the trial judge repeatedly and materially misstated that the complainant disclosed the sexual touching to her friend while still at the appointment, when the actual allegation was disclosed later while driving home.

Because that error was essential to the rejection of the motive-to-lie theory and therefore central to the conviction, the convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that it had no obligation to indemnify the plaintiff for a fire loss that destroyed a vacant commercial building.

The insurer argued the plaintiff breached a policy warranty requiring the building to remain 'fully secured' against unauthorized entry.

The court found the policy language unambiguous and determined that the property was not fully secured, as photographic evidence showed entire sections of the building's walls were exposed without boarding or fencing.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, concluding the insurer had no obligation to indemnify the plaintiff.

Family law trial concerning child support and section 7 childcare expenses for two children after all other issues were resolved.

The court found there was no 50-50 parenting arrangement after separation until January 2025, and that the respondent's parenting time again fell below the 40% threshold when he relocated, so the presumptive table amount applied for those periods.

The court rejected the respondent's evidence about unemployment, job search efforts, and finances, found him intentionally underemployed or unemployed, and imputed income based on prior earnings.

Although the parties later resumed shared parenting, the court held a set-off under s. 9 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines was inappropriate given the parties' circumstances and the respondent's conduct.

Retroactive child support and proportional contribution to childcare expenses were ordered.

The self-represented plaintiff sought to set aside an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for a farm property, arguing it was executed after the irrevocability date had expired or, alternatively, under duress.

The court found the plaintiff's testimony unreliable and concluded that the irrevocability date had been validly extended and initialled before she signed the counteroffer.

The court also dismissed the duress claim, finding that while the plaintiff faced economic and time pressure due to a court order to sell the property, the pressure was lawful and did not deprive her of her free will.

The action was dismissed.

Sentencing for a youthful offender who pleaded guilty to possessing approximately 609 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, and breaching three weapons prohibition orders.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount, finding the offender to be at the high end of a mid-level fentanyl trafficking hierarchy and emphasizing the dangerous combination of large quantities of lethal drugs and a loaded handgun.

After imposing consecutive sentences totalling 14.5 years, the court reduced the sentence to 12 years under the totality principle, then further mitigated the sentence by six months for harsh pre-sentence detention conditions.

After Summers credit for 428 days of pre-sentence custody, the net sentence was 117 months in a federal penitentiary, together with lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and forfeiture orders.

Following jury convictions for sexual assault and two counts of sexual assault with a weapon arising from repeated sexual abuse of an intimate partner over a lengthy cohabiting relationship, the court determined the sentencing facts consistent with the jury verdicts.

The court found two incidents of non-consensual anal sex, five occasions where rope remained on the complainant after consent was withdrawn, and two non-consensual anal plug incidents, but declined to find controlling and abusive behaviour proved beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate aggravating factor.

Emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and the statutory aggravation for abuse of an intimate partner, the court imposed 6 years' imprisonment on each count concurrent.

The court also made a lifetime SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a custodial no-contact order.

In the context of CCAA proceedings, the Monitor sought directions on the interpretation of a litigation funding agreement and the approved Plan of Arrangement regarding the distribution of funds released from security for costs.

The successful defendants in related litigation argued the funds should be paid to them to satisfy outstanding costs awards.

The court rejected this interpretation, finding the plain wording of the agreements required the funds to be treated as Subsequent Cash on Hand for the benefit of Secured Noteholders.

The court also declined to approve the Monitor's historical activities, noting the expiry of limitation periods rendered such approval unnecessary, but granted the Monitor's discharge.

In a family law motion to change, both parties sought amendments to a prior final order governing parenting, child support, therapy, and section 7 expenses.

The court refused retroactive changes to the parties' support incomes because the earlier order had adopted a detailed three-year income-imputation plan, but it fixed prospective incomes at $90,000 for the applicant and $30,000 for the respondent.

The court replaced reciprocal support obligations with a single set-off payment, fixed arrears after set-off, amended the parenting provisions to preserve a week-about schedule for all three children while deferring added flexibility for the two younger children until age 16, and corrected pickup/drop-off language.

The court also revised the therapy provisions, added terms to permit direct claims against the applicant's benefit plan, awarded $4,500 for unpaid section 7 contributions, and replaced the prior section 7 payment mechanism with monthly payments.

The applicants, four great-grandchildren of the deceased, sought a declaration that funds placed in four RESPs by their great-grandfather were impressed with a trust for their post-secondary education.

The respondent, their great-aunt and the subscriber of the RESPs, argued the funds were a gift to her and she had sole discretion over them.

After refusing to release funds for one applicant's tuition and subsequently closing two of the RESPs to take the funds for herself, the applicants brought this application.

The court found the three certainties of trust were met, the claim was not statute-barred, and the respondent breached her fiduciary duty.

The court ordered the respondent removed as subscriber, replaced by a neutral third party, and ordered her to repay the misappropriated funds with investment growth.

The defendant, a real estate salesperson, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action.

The plaintiff, also a salesperson at the same Re/Max brokerage, claimed she was the defendant's employee or dependent contractor for 17 years.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the Trust in Real Estate Services Act prohibits a salesperson from employing another salesperson or accepting remuneration from anyone other than their brokerage.

Furthermore, the objective facts demonstrated the parties merely had an agreement to share commissions as independent contractors, and the plaintiff did not meet the common law tests for employment or dependent contractor status.

The applicants, an anti-abortion organization and its youth coordinator, sought to display graphic images of fetuses during a protest on Parliament Hill.

Officers from the Parliamentary Protective Service (PPS) prohibited the display, citing rules against obscene or hateful messages.

The applicants brought an application arguing this violated their freedom of expression under s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the PPS's operational decision breached the applicants' Charter rights and was not justified under s. 1, as the specific prohibition on graphic images was not yet published at the time.

The court granted a declaration that the rights were infringed but declined to strike down the rules governing Parliament Hill, as the rule-making committee was not a party to the proceeding.