SCJ 2026

The accused was charged with firearm offences after a loaded prohibited firearm was discovered during a police traffic stop.

At trial, the accused brought a blended Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10.

The court found that the police conducted an arbitrary pre-text stop, unlawfully arrested the accused, failed to provide reasons for detention or rights to counsel, and used excessive force by deploying a taser.

The court also found the officers' testimony to be dishonest and symptomatic of an after-the-fact justification.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious police misconduct warranted the exclusion of the firearm evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with robbery after stealing a vehicle at gunpoint from an innocent family in a mall parking lot.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence, arguing he stole the vehicle to escape after being attacked during a drug deal and firing his own handgun.

The court found that while the accused reasonably believed a threat of force was being used against him and acted for a defensive purpose, his response of robbing innocent bystanders at gunpoint was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's reckless role in creating the dangerous situation by bringing a loaded handgun to a drug deal weighed heavily against the reasonableness of his actions.

The accused was found guilty of robbery.

In simultaneous child protection proceedings concerning six siblings, the court found that the five oldest children remained in need of protection and the youngest child was in need of protection under the CYFSA.

The evidence established chronic instability, neglect, exposure to violence, housing insecurity, inadequate hygiene, educational disruption, and failure to address the children’s medical and emotional needs while in parental care.

Applying the statutory best-interests framework, the court held that the oldest child’s best interests were served by a six-month supervision order placing him with his father under continued Society supervision, while the remaining five children should remain in their stable current placements through extended society care orders.

The court also made detailed access orders preserving the children’s beneficial relationships with their parents, siblings, and paternal grandmother.

The defendant brought a motion to rectify the land registry record under section 159 of the Land Titles Act.

The parties are abutting landowners, and the defendant's property requires an easement over the plaintiff's land for access.

The Committee of Adjustment had previously granted a permanent easement as a condition of severing the land, but a temporary one-year easement was mistakenly registered on title following a private agreement between the parties.

The court held that the Certificate of Consent under the Planning Act does not immunize the resulting transfer from rectification where the registered instrument does not match the approved instrument.

The motion was granted, and the title was ordered rectified to reflect a permanent easement.

On a Charter motion arising from a firearm prosecution, the applicant challenged an investigative detention, takedown, arrest, and subsequent seizure in an apartment building lobby and hallway.

The court held that although reasonable suspicion was conceded, the officer deliberately failed to inform the applicant of the reasons for detention, escalated force when the applicant lawfully tried to leave, and failed to provide full rights to counsel after arrest.

The court found breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and further found that the officer’s mistreatment of the applicant during key parts of the interaction was influenced by anti-Black racism.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admission of the firearm evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

Following a 16-day trial involving parenting, equalization, and fraudulent conveyance claims, the applicant wife sought costs of over $305,000.

The court found the wife was largely successful, particularly on the dominant issues of equalization and fraudulent conveyance against the husband and one respondent.

The court awarded the wife $223,000 in costs, apportioned among the issues.

Additionally, the court ordered two self-represented respondents to pay $500 each for relying on AI-generated fake case law in their submissions, noting their failure to verify the authorities or take responsibility when the issue was raised.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against his siblings for allegedly failing to comply with a prior production order, and seeking extensive further productions of corporate records spanning 35 years related to family businesses.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the issue was one of interpreting the scope of the prior order rather than deliberate defiance.

The court also dismissed the request for further productions, holding that the requests were disproportionate, overly broad, and largely irrelevant to the underlying application regarding their incapable mother's property.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault but subsequently brought an application to strike the plea prior to sentencing.

He argued the plea was involuntary due to the stress of being arrested on outstanding warrants and uninformed because he did not fully appreciate the immigration consequences, specifically the risk of deportation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had the cognitive capacity to make a volitional choice and was explicitly warned by counsel and the court about potential immigration consequences but chose to proceed anyway.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to strike the plea, concluding there was no miscarriage of justice.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) for charges of being unlawfully in a dwelling house, resisting a peace officer, and breach of probation.

The appeal was based on the entry of an invalid plea of 'not criminally responsible by way of mental disorder' and the trial judge's failure to provide adequate reasons for the NCRMD finding under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the errors.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, quashed the NCR verdict, and ordered a new trial, noting the serious miscarriage of justice that resulted in the appellant's deprivation of liberty for nearly six years.

The charges were subsequently withdrawn upon the appellant entering into a peace bond.

The applicants sought a judicial recount of the ballots cast in the 45th General Election for the electoral district of Windsor-Tecumseh-Lakeshore, where the initial count showed a 77-vote margin.

The court granted the application based on credible affidavit evidence of counting errors, without requiring proof of materiality.

During the recount, the court ruled on numerous disputed ballots, strictly applying the mandatory requirement for a mark in the circle while objectively assessing whether extraneous marks could identify the elector.

The court also admitted special ballots bearing initials on the reverse, finding they were likely placed by election officers.

The recount concluded with the leading candidate's margin reduced to four votes, confirming the election result.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants requested a modest $5,000 each, despite incurring over $100,000 each in legal expenses over a decade of unproductive litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs, focusing on her medical accommodations and stating she could not afford the requested amount.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, reducing the requested amount and ordering the plaintiff to pay $3,500 to each of the four defendants, totaling $14,000.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two offenders after the sentencing judge departed from joint submissions on sentence.

The sentencing judge reduced the agreed-upon sentences without notifying counsel or applying the public interest test from Anthony-Cook.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeals, finding that the sentencing judge committed material reversible error by failing to apply the correct legal test and denying procedural fairness.

The joint submissions were substituted for the sentences imposed below.

The applicant, the common-law spouse of the deceased, sought dependant's relief from his estate.

The deceased's two sons also brought claims asserting ownership over two properties, arguing they were not estate assets.

The court found that one property was held in trust for one son and was not an estate asset, while the other property belonged to the estate as the other son failed to establish a constructive trust, resulting trust, or valid gift.

Regarding dependant's relief, the court applied the four-part test under the Succession Law Reform Act, balancing the applicant's needs against the beneficiaries' interests.

The court ordered a lump sum for past support and ongoing monthly support to be funded by an annuity with a reversionary interest to the estate.

The applicant sought an order compelling the respondents to deliver books, records, and equipment to the court-appointed receiver, and a declaration that the respondents breached the Receivership Order.

The respondents argued that their pending application for leave to appeal the Receivership Order automatically stayed the proceedings.

The court held that while filing an appeal as of right triggers an automatic stay under section 195 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, filing an application for leave to appeal does not.

The court granted the requested orders, finding the respondents in clear breach of the Receivership Order.

The accused was tried on multiple charges including human trafficking, receiving material benefits, advertising sexual services, transmitting child pornography, and distributing intimate images relating to two young female complainants.

The court found that the accused exercised control over the movements of a 15-year-old complainant for the purpose of exploiting her in the sex trade, and that he received the financial benefits of her services.

The accused was found guilty of the human trafficking, child pornography, and intimate image offences, but was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm and breaching a release order.

The father brought a motion to change seeking a custody reversal and child support after the mother engaged in a concerted campaign of parental alienation.

Despite previous court orders for reunification therapy, the mother refused to comply.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer introduced expert and social worker evidence indicating the child's extreme views against the father had intensified, including threats of self-harm.

The court concluded that while the mother was responsible for the alienation, a custody reversal would likely fail and cause further harm to the child.

The child was ordered to remain in the mother's primary care with independent counselling, and the father's motion was dismissed.

The succeeding estate trustee brought a motion to compel the former estate trustees to produce estate administration files from four law firms retained during their tenure.

The former estate trustees resisted, claiming solicitor-client privilege and arguing the request was unreasonable.

The court granted the motion, finding that the former estate trustees were bound by prior court orders to produce all estate administration records and that any claim of privilege failed because the advice was obtained for the benefit of the estate, creating a joint interest with the beneficiaries.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded firearm, fentanyl, and cocaine.

He had loaned his vehicle to another individual knowing it would be used for drug trafficking and that a firearm was involved.

The Crown sought a seven-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was available and appropriate given the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, his compliance with strict house arrest bail for 40 months, his employment, and the impact a custodial sentence would have on his children.

A conditional sentence of two years less six days was imposed, followed by three years of probation.

The plaintiff mall owners sought over $12 million in consequential damages following the defendant anchor tenant's early closure in breach of its lease.

The trial was bifurcated, with liability previously determined in the plaintiffs' favour.

The court assessed various heads of damages, applying the test for remoteness from Hadley v. Baxendale.

The court awarded $570,216.02, finding that certain tenant inducements and lost rent from specific departing tenants were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the sudden breach.

However, the court dismissed the majority of the claims, concluding that mall renovations were planned maintenance, several tenant failures were unrelated to the breach, and the claim for lost prospective tenants was speculative.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against a contractor and his sole proprietorship for damages arising from a failed home renovation project.

The defendants failed to complete the work in a timely and workmanlike manner, abandoning the project after receiving a substantial deposit.

The court found the defendants in breach of contract and awarded the plaintiffs the costs incurred to remediate and complete the project, totaling $264,312, plus partial indemnity costs.