SCJ 2026

The Crown brought an application under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) at the upcoming sexual assault trial.

The complainant suffers from severe depression and PTSD, and testified that facing the accused in court would cause extreme anxiety and impair the ability to testify coherently.

The court found that the Crown met the threshold, as permitting the use of CCTV would facilitate a full and candid account of the events and serve the proper administration of justice.

The application was granted.

The applicant sought declaratory relief and permanent injunctions against a neighbouring winery and the Town, alleging the winery hosted outdoor events in violation of the agricultural zoning by-law and its site-specific plan.

The winery consented to the declarations and injunctions.

The applicant proceeded against the Town, seeking mandamus to compel by-law enforcement and a statutory injunction under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the Town from facilitating the breach.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application against the Town, finding that the by-law did not impose a duty of enforcement necessary for mandamus, and there was no evidence of bad faith or arbitrariness by the Town to warrant an injunction against it.

Following the dismissal of two dependent's relief applications against an insolvent estate, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful applicants.

The court allocated the estate's costs between the two applications.

Joanne Sebanc was ordered to pay $14,000 on a partial indemnity basis, recognizing her mixed success and limited ability to pay.

Roseanne, Daniel, and Natalie Sebanc were ordered to pay $30,000 on a substantial indemnity basis because they pursued baseless allegations of fraud and failed to accept a favourable offer to settle.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interlocutory injunction due to a lack of legal capacity to sue, the responding First Nation sought costs of $40,510.34 on a partial indemnity basis.

The individual who brought the proceeding on behalf of the applicant accepted personal liability for costs but argued the quantum was excessive.

The court found the hours claimed by the responding First Nation were disproportionate to the complexity of the issues, which were primarily procedural.

The court fixed costs at $18,000 all inclusive, payable by the individual personally.

The plaintiff transferred eleven lots to the defendants to shield them from his creditors, providing $80,000 in cash to cover the purchase price and carrying costs.

The defendants later denied the existence of a trust and claimed absolute ownership.

The court found that an express trust was established, corroborated by the plaintiff's solicitor's contemporaneous notes and email correspondence.

The court rejected the defendants' reliance on the Statute of Frauds and the Land Titles Act.

Despite the plaintiff's fraudulent intent to defeat creditors, the court exercised its equitable discretion to enforce the trust, noting the defendants' knowing participation and that returning the properties would benefit the plaintiff's creditors.

The plaintiff moved to not enter judgment in accordance with a jury verdict that dismissed his personal injury and racial profiling claims arising from an arrest by mall security for trespassing.

The plaintiff argued there was no evidence to support the jury's findings that the defendants had reasonable grounds to arrest him, did not use racial stereotypes, used reasonable force, and that he suffered no damages.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants led 'some evidence' on each issue, including expert testimony on use of force and medical causation, which the jury was entitled to accept.

Judgment was ordered to be entered in accordance with the jury's verdict.

The defendants defaulted on a mortgage provided by the plaintiffs.

After obtaining default judgment and a writ of possession, the plaintiffs sought to enforce the eviction.

On the eve of enforcement, the self-represented defendants brought an urgent motion to stay the writ of possession, arguing they needed time to sell the property themselves to maximize their recovery.

The court adjourned the motion for two weeks and granted a temporary stay, ordering the defendants to provide evidence of an actual listing agreement and sales activity to justify any further extension.

The plaintiffs were awarded substantial indemnity costs for the motion.

The offender was convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and break and enter after fleeing police and hiding a defaced handgun with an overcapacity magazine on an elderly woman's balcony.

The court weighed the offender's serious youth record, which included a conviction for first-degree murder, against mitigating factors including his difficult background as a racialized offender under the Morris framework.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, reduced by 900 days of Summers credit and 500 days of Duncan/Marshall credit for exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, leaving 3 years, 1 month, and 29 days to serve.

The applicant mother brought a motion for the partition and sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent father, who remained in the home while the applicant and children lived in a single bedroom elsewhere, failed to pay the mortgage, resulting in significant arrears.

The respondent did not file responding materials or participate in the hearing.

The court granted the motion, finding no malicious intent by the applicant, no prejudice to future family law claims, and that the sale was an economic necessity in the best interests of the family.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against the Town of East Gwillimbury, alleging it failed to enforce zoning by-laws against his neighbour's property.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to strike the 202-page draft amended statement of claim under Rule 21.01(1)(b) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Applying the Anns/Cooper test, the court held that a municipality owes no private law duty of care to a ratepayer to enforce its by-laws.

The motion was granted and the action was dismissed without leave to amend.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for contempt against the defendants for allegedly breaching a Mareva injunction by dissipating assets and failing to disclose bank accounts.

The defendants moved to strike the contempt motion for lack of particulars and improper service.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their notice of motion and to file additional affidavits based on evidence obtained during cross-examinations and from third-party banks.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding they had fair notice of the allegations.

The court granted the plaintiffs' motions to amend the notice of motion and file additional affidavits, as the new evidence was relevant and there was no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The appellant commercial unit owners sought leave to appeal and to set aside an arbitration award that dismissed their oppression claims against the respondent condominium corporation.

The appellants alleged the respondent failed to enforce its declaration regarding unauthorized business uses.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, finding that the parties were bound by an arbitration agreement that precluded appeals.

The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellants had a full opportunity to present their case and the arbitrator provided logical and transparent reasons for concluding they failed to prove oppression.

The parties separated after a seven-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the equalization of net family properties, the determination of the respondent's income for child support purposes under a shared parenting arrangement, and the respondent's claim for spousal support.

The court determined the value of the matrimonial home and various debts, ordering the applicant to pay a net equalization payment of $48,231.06.

Both parties' claims for an unequal division of net family property were dismissed.

The court imputed income to the self-employed respondent due to his failure to provide adequate financial disclosure and ordered the applicant to pay $600 per month in child support based on a set-off calculation.

The respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as he failed to establish entitlement on either a compensatory or non-compensatory basis.

The defendant in a medical malpractice trial brought a motion to reopen the evidentiary record after the close of evidence but before judgment, seeking to introduce fresh evidence regarding recent amendments to the Assistive Devices Program (ADP).

The defendant argued the new ADP policies would make the plaintiff's orthotic device eligible for funding, thereby reducing the future care costs claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's device remained ineligible under the revised ADP criteria because it was not manufactured in-house from raw materials.

The court further held that even if the evidence could change the result, reopening the trial after ten years of litigation would not be in the interests of justice due to significant delay, costs, and procedural complexity.

The applicant sought specific performance of a share transfer agreement to acquire 25% of the shares in two privately held corporations from the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing the agreement was unclear, unconscionable, signed under duress, barred by estoppel, and outside the limitation period.

The court utilized its enhanced fact-finding powers to resolve the application without a trial.

The court found the agreement valid, clear, and supported by consideration in the form of significant personal guarantees provided by the applicant's principal.

The court rejected the respondent's defenses and ordered specific performance, finding that the shares were unique and damages would be inadequate.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion against the respondent, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing a disclosure motion based on baseless allegations of misrepresentation under oath, and persisting despite offers to settle on a without-costs basis, was reprehensible.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $37,000.

Following the dismissal of an oppression application at the request of the applicants, the respondents sought costs and various other orders.

The court denied the respondents' claim for costs, finding that their conduct throughout the litigation had been improper, vexatious, and unnecessary, and that they were not the successful parties given an earlier finding of oppression against them.

The court also dismissed the respondents' requests for additional relief, including claims under the Human Rights Code and for restitution, as being outside the scope of the costs endorsement.

The Society apprehended twin boys at birth and sought an order for extended society care, citing the mother's history of exposing her older child to domestic violence and her inability to adequately care for the children.

The mother, who had severed ties with the abusive father, relocated, and engaged in extensive rehabilitative programming, sought the return of the children.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the potential risk of domestic conflict but concluded it was in their best interests to be returned to the mother's care subject to a four-month supervision order, noting her meaningful progress and demonstrated ability to safely parent.

The defendant requested that the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed or stayed under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The claim sought to resolve a dispute over the defendant bank's asserted financial interest in a vehicle acquired by the plaintiff.

The court denied the request, finding that the pleading was intelligible and did not bear the hallmarks of an abusive proceeding on its face, noting that any deficiencies in the cause of action should be addressed through a regular motion to strike.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a final order placing a medically complex child in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing she could care for the child with appropriate supports and that the Society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from third-party service providers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the mother's ability to provide a viable plan of care, the reasons for the breakdown in relationships with service providers, and whether the Society fulfilled its statutory duty to assist the mother.