SCJ 2026

The young person, who was sentenced to seven years for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for a sentence review under s. 94(19) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The young person sought to convert the remaining seven months of his secure custody sentence to conditional supervision in the community.

The court found that the young person had made significant rehabilitative progress despite the lack of programming in adult detention centres.

Balancing the interests of society and the needs of the young person, the court ordered the young person's release on conditional supervision with strict conditions.

The plaintiff, who was in arrears on her storage unit rental payments, sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent the defendant storage company from auctioning the contents of her units.

She claimed the units contained evidence for unrelated personal injury actions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no serious issue to be tried as the plaintiff was in breach of the rental agreement, which permitted the defendant to sell the contents upon default.

The court also found no irreparable harm, noting the plaintiff's refusal to take reasonable steps to preserve the alleged evidence, and held that the balance of convenience favoured the defendant.

The defendant was permitted to auction the contents after 21 days.

The applicant and respondent were in a common law relationship from 2007 to 2020.

Following separation, the applicant brought claims for unjust enrichment and repayment of a promissory note.

The matter proceeded as an uncontested trial after the respondent failed to participate.

The court granted judgment for $90,000 based on a 2016 written acknowledgment of debt.

However, the court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding insufficient evidence of a joint family venture, enrichment by the respondent, or corresponding deprivation by the applicant.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching arising from repeated sexual abuse of a young child by a parental figure in the home.

The court applied the modern sentencing framework for child sexual offences, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, the serious bodily and psychological harm caused by digital penetration, repeated abuse, breach of trust, and foreseeable long-term impacts.

The sexual assault count was conditionally stayed under the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

A global sentence of six years' imprisonment was imposed, together with substantial ancillary orders, and the victim surcharge was waived for undue hardship.

The offender pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to murder.

She assisted her boyfriend in evading police after he stabbed the victim to death.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 2 years less a day, credited with pre-trial custody, resulting in an 18.5-month conditional sentence followed by 3 years of probation.

The court noted the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative progress as mitigating factors.

The plaintiff, a lawyer, commenced an action against her former articling firm for breach of contract, breach of duty of care, breach of privacy, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment.

The parties had been engaged in litigation since 2008 across multiple forums regarding the plaintiff's termination and the disclosure of her official law school transcripts.

The defendant requested that the action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim was an attempt to relitigate issues that had been fully and finally disposed of in prior proceedings, including a 2022 summary judgment decision.

The court concluded that the action was vexatious and an abuse of process, and ordered it dismissed.

The applicants in a CCAA proceeding brought a motion seeking approval of a distribution of remaining proceeds, targeted third-party releases, approval of the Monitor's reports and fees, and termination of the CCAA proceedings.

The court approved the distribution to the DIP Lender, noting it was unopposed and justified given the emergency financing provided.

However, the court found the proposed scope of the third-party releases impermissibly broad, as it purported to release claims unrelated to the restructuring.

The court directed that the release language be narrowed to tie specifically to activities contributing to the CCAA proceedings.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a declaration that the defendant waived litigation privilege over a 'Proffer' document provided to the Attorney General of Canada for national security vetting under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that while the document was created for the dominant purpose of litigation, the defendant's stated intention of using it to promote trial efficiency constituted a waiver of privilege vis-à-vis the trial judge.

The court ordered the unredacted Proffer to be provided to the judge and established a comprehensive trial protocol, including the appointment of amicus curiae and advance vetting of sensitive evidence, to balance national security concerns with trial fairness.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the Attorney General of Ontario seeking damages for alleged wrongs committed by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The plaintiff had previously brought a similar action directly against the HRTO, which was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The defendant requested that the current action be dismissed under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that the action was an attempt to relitigate the previously dismissed claim and constituted a collateral attack on the HRTO's decision.

Furthermore, the Crown is immune from liability for acts of a judicial nature.

The action was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to robbery.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, a history of severe mental illness including schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder, and a pattern of committing robberies shortly after release from custody.

The court found that the offender met the statutory criteria for a dangerous offender based on both a pattern of repetitive behaviour and persistent aggressive behaviour.

Concluding that the offender was intractable and that no lesser measure would adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate penitentiary sentence.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a probation order following an altercation in a residential building.

The Crown relied on CCTV footage to prove the accused's identity and participation in the assault alongside a co-accused who stabbed the complainant with a screwdriver.

The court found that even if the accused was the man in the video, the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused the complainant's injuries or aided and abetted the co-accused.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to stay the enforcement of property and costs payments he owed to the respondent mother under a final family law order, citing financial hardship.

The mother brought a cross-motion to set off her child support obligations against the amounts the father owed her.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding no legal basis to pre-emptively stay enforcement of a final order based on ability to pay.

On the cross-motion, the court stayed the enforcement of the mother's child support obligations pending further financial disclosure to determine whether a set-off could be structured without materially disadvantaging the children.

The offender, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of 247.5 g of fentanyl and 93.4 g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found him to be a mid-level, profit-motivated trafficker.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of prior record, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, for which he received six months of Duncan credit.

The court emphasized the devastating impact of fentanyl on the community and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years for the fentanyl charge and 4 years concurrent for the methamphetamine charge, leaving 1016 days to serve after pre-sentence and Duncan credits.

The defendant moved to set aside a default judgment and a Registrar's dismissal order for delay.

The plaintiff had obtained default judgment after serving the statement of claim by substitute service to addresses where the defendant did not reside.

The defendant discovered the judgment years later when selling a property and paying off a writ of execution.

The court found the default judgment was irregularly obtained because the defendant never received the claim.

Alternatively, the court held it was in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment, as the defendant had an arguable defence of forgery.

The default judgment, noting in default, and dismissal order were set aside, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the writ discharge funds into court.

The plaintiffs (defendants to the counterclaim) brought a motion for security for costs against one of the defendants (plaintiff by counterclaim), a foreign corporation resident in China.

The court found that while the corporate defendant was ordinarily resident outside Ontario, an order for security for costs would be unjust.

The court held that the counterclaim was closely connected to the main action and substantially served as a defence to the plaintiffs' claims regarding a construction contract and settlement agreement.

The motion was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

In an estates dispute over jointly held property alleged to be held on resulting trust for the deceased's estate, the moving party sought summary judgment dismissing the trust claim as statute-barred and extending that ruling to a related passing of accounts application.

The court held that summary judgment is not available in an application, applying the Court of Appeal's direction that Rule 20 is restricted to actions.

The court further declined to convert the matter into a partial hearing of substantive issues, finding that piecemeal adjudication would be disproportionate given the overlap between the trust claim, the estate trustee's accounting obligations, and potential breach of duty issues.

The limitation issue was left for determination at a joint hearing of both applications, and costs were deferred.

The plaintiff brought motions to approve a $60 million settlement in a class action concerning historical institutional abuse at Ontario Training Schools between 1953 and 1984.

The court approved the settlement, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, noting the significant litigation risks and the benefits of a trauma-informed claims process.

The court also approved Class Counsel's contingency fee of 28.5%, a $15,000 honorarium for the representative plaintiff, the disclosure of class member contact information to the Public Guardian and Trustee, and a motion by a class member to rescind his prior opt-out due to medical difficulties.

The applicant brought an entrapment application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging police facilitated criminal acts.

The court summarily dismissed the application, finding it relied on facts not in evidence and mischaracterized the interaction between a confidential source and police.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion to investigate and there was no evidence that they induced the applicant, who admitted to already being a drug dealer, to commit the offence.

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a separation agreement signed in 2019, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of consensus, and that the agreement was a sham.

Under the agreement, the applicant transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent.

The court found no evidence to support the applicant's claims and held that the agreement was valid and enforceable.

The motion to set aside the separation agreement was dismissed.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion without notice for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) against the defendant purchaser's existing home.

The parties had entered into a pre-construction agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium, which included a clause granting the plaintiff an equitable interest in the defendant's existing home as security in the event of default.

The court found that the plaintiff raised a triable issue regarding an interest in land based on the contractual terms and the defendant's alleged failure to pay the deposit and complete occupancy closing.

The motion for leave to issue a CPL was granted.