SCJ 2026

The applicant, an RCMP officer on leave, sought an oppression remedy under the Canada Not-For-Profit Corporations Act after the respondent's Board of Directors overruled its Nominations and Election Committee and declared him ineligible to stand for election as a director.

The applicant argued the Board acted in bad faith and contrary to past practice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not meet the by-law requirement of being from National Headquarters, as he had not yet been transferred there.

The court held that the Board acted reasonably and within its duty to enforce the by-laws, and the applicant had no reasonable expectation that a candidacy violating the by-laws would be approved.

The offender was convicted of importing firearms, conspiracy to traffic in firearms, and attempt to possess a firearm after a commercial enterprise involving the importation of three handguns with overcapacity magazines.

The court considered the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's lack of prior record and the significant collateral consequence of deportation.

A global sentence of four years' imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The respondent was entirely successful on motions regarding parenting time and child support, and sought costs of $25,493.

The applicant opposed the quantum, citing his recent job loss and limited financial means.

The court found the applicant had behaved unreasonably by refusing to pay voluntary child support, forcing a needless motion.

Applying principles of reasonableness and proportionality, the court fixed costs at $15,000, allowing the applicant to pay in monthly installments, and ordered the costs enforceable by the Director as a support order.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death after a high-speed collision that killed his passenger.

The offender had a blood alcohol concentration well above the legal limit and was driving at an excessive speed.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of high BAC and speed against mitigating factors including a guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and pre-sentence rehabilitative steps.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment, after receiving 9 months of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 6-year driving prohibition.

The plaintiff credit union sought judgment against the defendant spouse for the net sale proceeds of a condominium previously owned by her former husband.

The husband's mortgage with the plaintiff had been mistakenly deleted from title, and upon the sale of the property, the proceeds were transferred to the defendant spouse's bank account.

The court found the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance made with the intent to defeat creditors, as there was no good consideration and the purported matrimonial settlement was not bona fide.

The court declared the transfer void and granted a tracing order under the Assignments and Preferences Act, awarding judgment to the plaintiff.

The applicant wife sought an equalization payment following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent husband argued that the parties were merely roommates, that a handwritten letter constituted a domestic contract overriding statutory equalization, and that equalizing the pre-marital value of the matrimonial home would be unconscionable.

The court rejected the husband's arguments, finding that the parties were engaged in a valid conjugal relationship until their physical separation in October 2020.

The court ordered the husband to pay the remaining equalization balance of $183,654.72 plus pre-judgment interest.

The respondent father brought a motion to change seeking to retroactively vary a 2010 child support order and rescind accumulated arrears.

The original order imputed an income of $35,000 to the father due to unemployment.

The father argued that medical issues prevented him from obtaining meaningful employment since 2010.

The court found the medical evidence insufficient and noted the father's lack of effort to find work, concluding there was no material change in circumstances.

The court also declined to rescind the arrears, finding the father had not established a complete inability to pay now or in the future.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The respondent was successful at a Focussed Hearing regarding the validity of a Post Nuptial Agreement and sought full indemnity costs of $144,762.72, including costs for prior steps.

The applicant argued for no costs or reduced costs, and requested a stay of enforcement pending her appeal.

The court declined to award costs for prior conferences, focusing only on the Focussed Hearing.

Finding the respondent's claimed fees on the higher side and no basis for full indemnity, the court awarded the respondent costs of $37,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The court also stayed enforcement of the costs award until the appeal is concluded.

The accused, a single mother, was charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of uttering a threat to cause death after choking and smothering her three children.

The accused admitted to the acts and to endangering their lives, but argued she lacked the specific intent to kill due to advanced intoxication and a blackout.

The court found that while the accused was not in a state of advanced intoxication, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to kill her children, as she stopped the assault herself, instructed her child to call 911, and expressed a desire to protect them from herself.

The accused was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of the lesser included offences of aggravated assault and uttering threats.

Following a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff $2.54 million in damages for wrongful dismissal, the court determined costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on pre-trial offers to settle and an elevated pre-judgment interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff did not beat his initial offer due to a pre-trial payment by the defendant, and his amended offer was made too late to trigger Rule 49.10.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to award elevated costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the defendant.

The court also declined to depart from the prescribed pre-judgment interest rate of 2.0%, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a higher rate.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $798,453.91.

The proposed intervenor, Friends of Shalom (FOS), brought a motion for leave to intervene as an added party in an action concerning the governance and charitable property of the Toronto Zionist Council (TZC) and its operation of Camp Shalom.

The plaintiffs consented to the motion, but TZC opposed it.

The court found that FOS satisfied the criteria under Rule 13.01, as it had an interest in the subject matter, could be adversely affected by a judgment, and shared common questions of law and fact with the parties.

The court granted FOS leave to intervene on specific terms to ensure its participation would be useful and not unduly delay or prejudice the proceedings.

The defendant was successful in its motion to dismiss the proposed class action for delay pursuant to s. 29.1(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, and sought costs of $42,792.31 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued that their counsel was inexperienced in class actions and unaware of the new limitation period.

The court held that it was not the defendant's responsibility to advise the plaintiffs of time limitations.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $40,000, slightly reducing the requested amount to reflect that success was based on a strict time limitation rather than the merits.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil proceeding to enforce an alleged intra-family loan of $105,798.75 against his brother and sister-in-law.

The sister-in-law, who was engaged in family law proceedings against the brother, opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion to add the plaintiff and his corporation to the family law matter, alleging the loan was fabricated to shield assets from equalization.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues of credibility regarding the source of the funds and the brothers' intertwined finances.

The court also dismissed the cross-motion to add parties, instead ordering a focussed trial under the Family Law Rules to determine the validity of the loan, while staying the civil action.

The parties, a former same-sex couple, engaged in a high-conflict parenting trial regarding their child conceived via a sperm donor.

The applicant sought a declaration of sole parentage and primary residence, while the respondent sought a declaration of parentage and primary residence.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for sole parentage, finding pre-conception intent to co-parent and noting the application was brought after the child's first birthday.

Finding the applicant had engaged in a pattern of alienating conduct, the court awarded primary residence to the respondent, shared decision-making with final say to the respondent, and a week-about parenting schedule.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate defendant for a defaulted commercial loan and against the individual defendants on their personal guarantees.

The defendants admitted the default but argued that their landlord caused the business failure by locking them out, and requested a stay of enforcement to pursue a third-party claim against the landlord.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial as the debt was admitted and the landlord's actions were not the bank's fault.

The court declined to stay enforcement, holding that it would be inequitable to delay the bank's recovery based on an unrelated third-party dispute.

The plaintiff law firm brought an in-writing motion for default judgment against the defendant for an unpaid invoice.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, finding the motion record deficient.

The court noted issues with improper service by mail instead of personal service, failure to include the underlying invoice, incorrect pre-judgment interest calculations, and failure to address why costs should not be restricted under Rule 57.05 given the claim fell within Small Claims Court jurisdiction.

The respondent brought a motion for the partition and sale of a jointly owned camp property where the applicant had been residing since separation.

The applicant opposed the sale, indicating an intention to amend his pleadings to advance a trust claim based on funds from a prior personal injury settlement used to purchase the property.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that a sale could unfairly prejudice the applicant's equitable claims and leave him without housing before the property issues were fully determined.

The applicant mother brought a motion to recognize and enforce a Manitoba final parenting order in Ontario under s. 41(1) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The respondent father, who was self-represented, had been noted in default in the Manitoba proceeding after an 18-month delay by the applicant, without any warning that the matter would proceed uncontested.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Manitoba court before the final order was made, which is an exception to recognition under s. 41(1)(b).

The court ordered the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer and directed the parties to a settlement conference to address the respondent's request for a superseding order.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default in a mortgage enforcement action.

The defendant had attempted to file a statement of defence within the permitted time, but it was rejected by the court due to formatting errors.

The court applied the Franchetti factors and found that while the defendant moved promptly, the proposed defence lacked merit as it merely outlined offers to refinance for less than the outstanding debt.

The court concluded that setting aside the default would cause prejudice to the plaintiff and unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

The motion was dismissed.

Following a trial where the respondent was awarded damages for unjust enrichment, he sought full indemnity costs of $10,642.67, citing the applicant's unreasonable behaviour and failure to accept an offer to settle.

The applicant, who was self-represented, resisted the costs order and sought spousal support and damages, alleging collusion between counsel.

The court rejected the applicant's allegations and found her behaviour, including reporting opposing counsel to the Law Society, to be unreasonable.

However, the court declined to award full indemnity costs, instead awarding enriched partial indemnity costs of $7,500 to the respondent.