SCJ 2026

The applicant estate trustee sought directions on the effect of handwritten, partially struck-out notations the deceased made on his typed will.

The notations did not comply with the formal execution requirements of section 18 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court declined to validate the notations under section 21.1, finding they did not represent the deceased's fixed and final intention, as enforcing them would lead to a partial intestacy that fundamentally contradicted the will's overall distributive scheme.

The original will was confirmed.

Following a trial where the non-settling defendant was found 100% liable, the court determined the full indemnity costs to be deducted from a $150,000 all-inclusive Pierringer settlement paid by the settling defendant.

The court allocated 25% of general fees and disbursements plus 100% of certain liability-specific disbursements to the settling defendant, resulting in a deduction of $74,934.33 from the settlement amount before applying the remainder to offset the jury's damage award.

The father brought a motion to change a 2018 consent order, seeking a retroactive reduction of his child support obligations based on an alleged decrease in income.

He also sought the return of a $54,000 equalization payment, arguing the mother breached the order by enforcing a pre-existing maintenance order in India.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the father failed to provide reliable evidence of a continuous, involuntary drop in income.

The court also held the father failed to establish the mother breached the Canadian order, as it did not explicitly preclude her from enforcing the foreign maintenance order, which contained elements of compensation for domestic violence.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' two children to Lyon, France, and sought sole decision-making responsibility and child support orders.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought to maintain the children's residence in Ontario.

The court granted the relocation, finding it in the children's best interests due to the mother's role as primary caregiver and the availability of family support in France.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility.

Child support arrears were ordered based on prior court endorsements, and income was imputed to the father at $45,000 for ongoing child support.

The accused was charged with numerous offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, following a shooting at a graduation party.

The central issue was identity.

The Crown relied entirely on eyewitness evidence, specifically the in-dock identification by two witnesses who had not previously identified the accused to police.

Applying the principles governing the frailties of eyewitness and in-dock identification, the court found the identification evidence insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

The court assessed costs for three interlocutory motions in a first-party insurance claim.

The defendant was the successful party on a litigation privilege motion and responded to a motion abandoned by the plaintiff.

The court awarded the defendant $17,000 in fees plus disbursements for the first two motions, finding the amounts reasonable and proportionate, while ordering each party to bear their own costs for the third motion where success was divided.

A creditor appealed the Trustee in bankruptcy's decision to disallow her proof of claim.

The Trustee's only stated reason for disallowance was that the creditor failed to provide requested documentation.

The Court held that this did not constitute sufficient reasons under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, as it prevented a meaningful appeal.

The appeal was granted and the Notice of Disallowance was set aside, but the Court declined to order the claim proven, instead directing the parties to continue discussions.

The Estate Trustee applied for vacant possession, occupation rent, and carrying costs for a residential property forming part of the estate residue, while a residual beneficiary occupying the property applied to prevent its sale and remain in possession.

The court found the beneficiary had no legal or proprietary interest in the property to prevent the sale, and that the Estate Trustee properly exercised his discretion to sell it.

The court dismissed the beneficiary's application, ordered vacant possession within 60 days, and awarded the Estate occupation rent and carrying costs.

The defendants in a dental negligence action brought a motion to enforce a Rule 49 offer to settle that they accepted on December 2, 2025.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming she never authorized her former counsel to advance the offer.

The court found that the plaintiff's former counsel had apparent authority to advance the offer, and that it remained open for acceptance.

The court concluded the settlement was valid and enforceable.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully establishing at trial that the transfer of condominium sale proceeds to the defendant was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no fraudulent intent on the part of the receiving defendant.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $62,000, factoring in a reduction for administrative work performed by counsel.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Statement of Claim for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The plaintiff, a self-represented former patron of the defendant's pub, sought damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering, defamation, trespass, denial of service, and economic loss.

The court struck the Statement of Claim as it failed to plead sufficient material facts for the torts alleged.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the claims for economic loss, intentional infliction of mental suffering, and defamation, but struck the claims for trespass and refusal to serve without leave, as they amounted to claims of discrimination properly falling under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

Following a trial concerning a $225,000 promissory note, the court resolved outstanding issues regarding damages and costs.

The court determined that damages must be calculated based on a 12% fraction of the debt owing at the time the defendant filed a consumer proposal, plus interest, totaling $21,223.16.

The plaintiff was successful against one defendant and was awarded $51,567.00 in partial indemnity costs, factoring in the implications of the late-raised consumer proposal.

Following the settlement of a motion to change support for an adult child with a catastrophic brain injury, the parties sought costs.

The applicant sought up to $27,339.90, while the respondent sought $10,944.05.

The court determined that the applicant was the successful party because she established the core issue: the respondent's ongoing obligation to pay child support, despite his initial opposition.

However, the respondent achieved considerable success in defeating claims for spousal support and broad retroactivity, and had made a favourable offer to settle.

Balancing these factors, the court awarded the applicant moderate partial indemnity costs of $8,500.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, brought a challenge for cause application under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code due to pre-trial publicity, including reporting on a withdrawn guilty plea.

The Crown consented in principle to the challenge.

The Case Management Judge found a sufficient air of reality to the proposed prejudice and approved a series of questions to be asked of potential jurors to address the issue of impartiality.

The defendants in a solicitor's negligence action brought a motion seeking a determination that the plaintiff's prior long-term disability settlement was deductible in the underlying tort action, an order removing the plaintiff's counsel, a declaration that counsel is a compellable witness, and disclosure of the terms of a partial settlement with one defendant.

The court held that the long-term disability settlement was a deductible collateral benefit under the 'silo approach'.

However, the court dismissed the motion to remove counsel, set aside the summons to counsel as premature, and held that no further disclosure of the partial settlement was required.

The moving party husband sought an order to remove the responding party wife's solicitor of record on the basis of a conflict of interest arising from a prior consultation with another lawyer at the same firm.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the ethical wall erected by the law firm was sufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information would be shared, and that the risk of prejudice was merely speculative.

The applicant sought the court's direction on whether an unsigned, undated handwritten document by his deceased brother met the requirements to be validated as a last will and testament.

The court found the document authentic and that it represented the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intention, validating it under s. 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act despite it lacking a signature.

The mother brought a motion to change a final order providing for equal parenting time and joint decision-making for their eight-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the father's severe cocaine addiction, relapses, instability, and child welfare involvement.

Given the child's vulnerabilities and the father's failure to demonstrate sustained recovery and ability to meet the child's needs, the court granted the mother primary care and sole decision-making responsibility, with supervised parenting time for the father.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's 2020 motor vehicle accident claim for delay under Rules 24.01 and 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff failed to file an Affidavit of Documents, attend discoveries, or take meaningful steps to advance the proceeding for over six years.

The plaintiff also failed to file any affidavit evidence responding to the motion.

The Superior Court of Justice found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, and that it created a substantial risk that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed, with costs of $3,500 awarded to the defendants.

The respondent moving party brought a motion under Rule 25.11 to strike out the applicant's application concerning a settlement agreement and rent arrears.

The court found that it was not plain and obvious that the application would fail, as it raised issues regarding the interpretation of a settlement agreement.

The motion to strike was dismissed.