SCJ 2026

The offenders, foster parents to two Indigenous children, were found guilty of first degree murder of one child and unlawful confinement, assault with a weapon, and failure to provide necessaries of life to the other.

The court sentenced them to the mandatory life imprisonment without parole for 25 years for the murder.

For the offences against the surviving child, the court imposed sentences of 3 years, 2 years, and the maximum 5 years respectively, to be served consecutively to each other and concurrently with the life sentence.

The court emphasized the extreme vulnerability of the victims and the profound breach of trust, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a national class proceeding alleging that the defendants, major manufacturers of fragrance ingredients, engaged in an unlawful price-fixing conspiracy contrary to the Competition Act.

The proposed class included direct, indirect, and umbrella purchasers of fragrance ingredients and products.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to meet the 'some basis in fact' test.

The evidence relied upon consisted merely of unsubstantiated suspicions and investigations by foreign regulators, without any direct or indirect evidence of a conspiracy or its impact in Canada.

Furthermore, the court found the proposed class definition unmanageable, as it would be nearly impossible for individuals to self-identify as class members.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a handgun, and the offender's prior related youth record.

The court also weighed significant mitigating factors, notably the guilty pleas in the face of triable Charter issues and the deplorable conditions the offender experienced during 855 days of pre-sentence custody.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 1 year and 5 months after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following convictions for human trafficking, sexual assault with a weapon, and related offences against an intimate partner.

The court reviewed the offender's criminal history, institutional misconducts, and psychiatric assessments.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour, noting the offender's cognitive vulnerabilities, treatable substance use disorder, and strong community support.

The court dismissed the dangerous offender application, designated the offender a long-term offender, and imposed a total sentence of 10 years' imprisonment minus pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The moving parties, who were class members in a certified class action regarding defective heater-cooler devices, sought an extension of time to opt out of the class action after the deadline had passed.

They had recently discovered they contracted a severe infection from the device and wished to pursue an individual action.

The court applied the Johnson test, finding that while the moving parties established excusable neglect for missing the deadline, they failed to demonstrate that a late opt-out would not prejudice the defendants.

The defendants had already reached a settlement in principle in the class action based on the known number of opt-outs, and allowing a late opt-out would vitiate the integrity of the class action process.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant father was successful in a Hague Convention application resulting in an order for the return of the parties' son to California.

Following the decision, the respondent mother went into hiding with the child, necessitating police enforcement.

The father sought full recovery of his legal fees and travel expenses.

The court found the mother's conduct amounted to bad faith and awarded the father $78,535 in litigation costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

Additionally, the court awarded the father $26,500 for travel and accommodation expenses incurred to locate and recover the child pursuant to Article 26 of the Hague Convention, for a total costs award of $105,035.

The defendant in a construction lien action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions taken under advisement during examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff argued the defendant required leave under the former Construction Lien Act to bring the motion.

The court held that leave was implicitly granted by the discovery plan and was necessary to expedite the resolution of the dispute.

Applying the principles of proportionality and relevance, the court ordered the plaintiff to answer the majority of the outstanding questions, noting that undertakings must be honoured once given.

The court declined to order answers to questions regarding document authenticity and the plaintiff's opinion on a report prepared by the defendant's consultant.

The plaintiff corporation purchased a 37-acre rural property from the defendant corporation, whose sole director was the individual defendant husband.

The defendant wife alleged that the husband had previously forged her signature to transfer the property into his corporation's name and that the sale to the plaintiff was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat her claims in their ongoing family law proceedings, contrary to a non-depletion order.

The court found that while the conveyance by the husband was fraudulent, the plaintiff was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice under s. 3 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The plaintiff paid good consideration, based on expert appraisal evidence of the property's current rural zoning, and had no actual or constructive knowledge of the husband's fraudulent intent or the family law non-depletion order.

The court also held that the plaintiff was protected by the doctrine of deferred indefeasibility under s. 78(4.2) of the Land Titles Act and the indoor management rule.

The wife was ordered to remove the non-depletion order from title.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The sentencing judge had imposed a $1,500 fine but declined to impose the mandatory minimum 12-month driving prohibition under s. 320.24 of the Criminal Code, citing the respondent's personal circumstances and an administrative suspension.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that a sentencing judge cannot ignore the statutory mandatory minimum absent a constitutional challenge.

A 12-month driving prohibition was imposed.

Nine parties brought motions to intervene in an action concerning the interpretation of the Robinson Huron Treaty and the boundaries of the plaintiff's reserve lands.

Eight of the proposed intervenors were neighbouring First Nations who are also signatories to the Treaty, while the ninth was an unincorporated litigation trust.

The Superior Court of Justice granted party intervenor status to the eight First Nations, finding they had a direct interest in the boundary dispute and could provide useful context without overwhelming the plaintiff's case.

The court imposed strict conditions on their participation to prevent undue delay.

The motion by the litigation trust was dismissed, as it was not a rights-holder itself and its participation would be duplicative and unduly prejudicial to the plaintiff.

The appellant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and was sentenced to a $2,000 fine and an 18-month driving prohibition, which exceeded the Crown's position.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge failed to provide proper notice of considering a higher sentence and erred by not receiving documentary evidence of his counselling and community service.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the sentencing judge provided adequate notice at the outset of the hearing and that the failure to physically receive the documents did not impact the sentence, as the judge accepted counsel's representations regarding the mitigating factors but found the aggravating factors warranted a higher penalty.

The moving defendants sought an order under Rule 6.01 to have the condominium corporation's complex breach of contract and professional negligence action tried together with ten simplified procedure tort actions brought by individual homeowners arising from the same roof leak incident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that despite the common incident, the actions involved different causes of action, different levels of complexity, and were at vastly different stages of litigation.

The court held it would be unjust to delay the homeowners' advanced simplified proceedings to allow the corporation's more complex action to catch up.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her personal injury action for delay.

The action arose from a 2016 fall at a bus stop.

Despite a prior order extending the time to set the action down for trial, plaintiff's counsel inadvertently failed to diarize the new deadline, leading to the administrative dismissal.

The court applied the contextual test for setting aside a dismissal order, finding that the delay was adequately explained, counsel's inadvertence caused the missed deadline, and the defendant suffered no significant prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside, with no costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The respondent brought a motion for interim child and spousal support following the breakdown of a 15-year marriage.

The parties enjoyed an exceptionally high standard of living, with family wealth including a $200 million business fund and multiple luxury properties.

The applicant argued the motion was premature due to an impending $90 million equalization payment and contested the respondent's proposed budget as inflated.

The court found the motion was not premature and the respondent was entitled to support.

Given the applicant's income far exceeded the $350,000 ceiling, the court departed from a strict application of the guidelines, awarding $200,000 per month in interim spousal support and $75,000 per month in interim child support, plus $27,000 monthly for nannies.

Claims for retroactive support were deferred to trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to oppose the confirmation of a referee's report granting partial summary judgment, the defendant sought costs of $40,872.16 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued costs should be deferred to the final disposition of the reference or reduced.

The court declined to defer costs, noting that costs should generally be awarded for every step of the litigation process.

The court fixed costs at $35,000, finding this amount closer to the reasonable expectations of the parties given the complexity and importance of the issues.

The plaintiffs invested $17.8 million with a mortgage broker, who fraudulently used the funds to repay an unauthorized overdraft at TD Bank caused by a cheque kiting scheme.

The plaintiffs sued TD Bank for negligence, knowing receipt, conversion, and unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the negligence claim, finding TD Bank lacked actual knowledge of the fraud and thus owed no duty of care.

However, the court found TD Bank liable for knowing receipt, conversion, and unjust enrichment, as the bank had constructive knowledge of the fraud due to multiple red flags requiring enhanced due diligence, and the tort of conversion was held to apply to funds on deposit.

TD Bank was ordered to pay damages of over $16.3 million.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a stolen motor vehicle, flight from police, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

After fleeing a traffic stop in a stolen vehicle and crashing, the offender fled on foot and a loaded handgun was found nearby.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought a sentence of time served (749 days credited as 1124 days).

The court accepted the defence position, imposing a sentence of time served plus one day, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against the defendant on a claim for a personal guarantee of a corporate loan.

The defendant moved to set aside the default judgment, arguing he was only a minority shareholder and had received assurances he would not be personally liable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to adequately explain his delay in defending the action and moving to set aside the judgment.

Furthermore, the court held the proposed defence lacked an air of reality given the clear, unconditional terms of the signed guarantee.

Following the dismissal of the Township's application for an injunction and the granting of the respondents' cross-application for a fill permit, the court determined the quantum of costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs and disbursements including non-litigation expenses.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs, excluded non-litigation expenses, and awarded the respondents $31,193.68 on a partial indemnity basis.

Costs endorsement following a will challenge and a dependant support claim.

The applicant was unsuccessful in challenging the 2018 Wills but partially successful in his dependency claim.

The court applied the McGrath framework to determine if public policy considerations warranted costs being paid from the estate.

The court found public policy applied to the dependency claim but not the will challenge.

Costs were awarded on a partial indemnity basis, with the successful respondent on the will challenge receiving $200,000 and the applicant receiving $125,000 for the dependency claim.

After a 40% estate contribution to the applicant's costs and a set-off, the applicant was ordered to pay a net amount of $125,000 to the respondent.