SCJ 2026

On a pre-trial Charter application, the moving party sought exclusion of statements and physical evidence seized from a BMW, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10(b).

The court found a psychological detention, breaches of counsel and silence rights, and an unreasonable search in the manner police compelled production of a key fob.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the moving party’s verbal and non-verbal statements, including the key-fob handover.

The court admitted the drugs, firearm, ammunition, and related physical evidence because they were independently discoverable under a valid vehicle warrant.

The application was allowed in part.

The accused brought a Charter motion challenging a search warrant executed at his residence nearly two years after a robbery and firearm discharge offence.

The accused conceded reasonable grounds existed to believe he was the perpetrator but argued there were insufficient grounds to believe evidence would still be found at his residence.

He also argued that the inclusion of bad character evidence in the ITO was improper and that a subsequent cell phone warrant was overbroad.

The court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable to infer that clothing and cell phones would be retained over two years, that bad character evidence of similar robbery offences was relevant at the investigatory stage, and that any potential overbreadth in the cell phone warrant caused no prejudice as no evidence from the phone was tendered at trial.

A self-represented plaintiff sought damages after municipal enforcement of a property standards order led to demolition of structures and removal of numerous items characterized as refuse and debris.

The court held the Building Code Act order was valid and binding after committee review and non-compliance, and found the municipality had statutory authority to enter and enforce it.

The court found the municipality acted in good faith and with reasonable care, owed no duty to provide a detailed inventory-style accounting of removed refuse, and incurred no civil liability.

Claims against the police services board for failing to intervene or lay charges were also rejected.

The action was dismissed, and the court further held that damages were not proven in any event.

The plaintiffs in a medical negligence action brought a motion for leave to bring a motion after setting the action down for trial, and for an order compelling the defendant physician to produce his response letter to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

The court found that leave was required under Rule 48.04(1) and declined to grant it, as the plaintiffs had known about the letter for nearly a decade and offered no plausible explanation for the delay.

Even if leave had been granted, the court held the CPSO response letter was inadmissible in civil proceedings under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, which constitutes an absolute bar to use of documents prepared for College proceedings.

On a summary conviction appeal from convictions and acquittals arising from domestic allegations, the appellant challenged the assault conviction on grounds including improper use of prior consistent statements, misapprehension of evidence, and reliance on prior case reasoning.

The appeal court held the trial reasons, read as a whole, did not show impermissible credibility bolstering and disclosed no material misapprehension affecting the verdict.

The court found it was open to the trial judge to reject the appellant’s explanation for the injury evidence and to accept corroborative value in contemporaneous photographs.

The court further held the circumstantial-evidence argument was inapplicable because the case included direct testimony and proper reasonable-doubt analysis.

The summary conviction appeal was dismissed and the assault conviction was upheld.

In a costs-only decision following trial reasons, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $53,000 plus disbursements after partial success on breach of contract and failure on negligent misrepresentation.

The court applied s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and r. 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing reasonableness, proportionality, divided success, and litigation conduct.

Although the plaintiff was nominally successful at trial, the court found the plaintiff recovered only a fraction of its claim, overclaimed legal time, and engaged in concerning conduct, including issues around a purported licence and HST-related purchase price misstatement.

The court held substantial indemnity was unwarranted and ultimately declined to award any costs to the plaintiff.

The respondent on a motion to change brought an interim motion seeking retroactive child support from 2020 through 2025 and an order compelling the applicant father to finalize the divorce.

The court held that despite the general discouragement of interim motions within motions to change, the threshold was met where the material facts regarding the child's residence and the parties' incomes were largely undisputed.

Interim child support orders were made for 2021 through 2025 based on Line 15000 incomes, without prejudice to the final hearing.

The court also ordered the father to proceed with the divorce within 30 days, finding no legal disadvantage warranting delay and rejecting the argument that the divorce should await resolution of overpayment claims.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage on the defendant's principal residence in Etobicoke after the defendant defaulted on payments.

The defendant, a self-represented licensed real estate professional, opposed the motion arguing the bank's affiant should testify at trial, the mortgage was unconscionable due to lack of independent legal advice, the balance of convenience favoured a six-month stay, and leniency was warranted.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejected the unconscionability argument given the defendant's real estate expertise and the standard nature of the transaction, declined to impose a stay, and held the defendant had not established a basis to deny the requested relief.

Summary judgment was granted with costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The vendor plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the purchaser defendant for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an agreement of purchase and sale for $1,755,000, later amended to $1,700,000, but was unable to obtain financing by the closing date.

The court found the purchaser committed an anticipatory breach by communicating inability to close, the vendor accepted the repudiation, and the agreement was terminated.

The vendor appropriately mitigated damages by reselling the property for $1,650,290.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the vendor for damages of $78,906.49, with the purchaser's $70,000 deposit applied against that amount.

Following the applicant's abandonment of an application for leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of a corporation, the respondent sought costs pursuant to Rule 38.08(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered whether to depart from the presumptive costs entitlement and found that the applicant had not established on a balance of probabilities that the application disclosed a bona fide cause of action, particularly given the limitation period defence.

Costs were awarded to the respondent on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $30,000 all-inclusive, the court declining to award substantial or full indemnity costs as the case did not constitute one of those rare and exceptional circumstances warranting elevated costs.

Costs decision following the landlord's successful motion to stay the tenant's application for injunctive relief and relief from forfeiture pending arbitration.

The landlord sought partial indemnity costs of $20,183.47.

The tenant argued the costs were excessive, disproportionate, and should be reserved to the arbitrator.

The court declined to reserve costs, finding it controls costs of proceedings before it and the arbitration clause might not empower the arbitrator to award such costs.

The court reduced the hours claimed due to duplicative work by three lawyers and disallowed the articling student's attendance costs, awarding $13,500.00 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant, convicted of planned and deliberate first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, applied under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code for judicial screening of a "faint hope" application to reduce his parole ineligibility period.

The court considered the statutory factors under ss. 745.61 and 745.63, including the horrific nature of the offence, the applicant's post-offence conduct, his purported acceptance of responsibility and remorse, his conduct in custody, victim impact evidence, and risk assessments.

Despite acknowledging some genuine progress in custody and low to low-moderate risk of reoffending, the court found that the applicant's late-breaking claim of remorse was opportunistic and not genuine, his criminal thinking remained entrenched, and there was no reasonable prospect a unanimous jury would reduce his parole ineligibility.

The application was dismissed.

Following the successful summary dismissal of a counterclaim brought against a real estate brokerage, the court determined costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The brokerage had sought substantial indemnity costs of $21,089.91, arguing the counterclaim alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and negligence with potential reputational harm.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct, but awarded partial indemnity costs of $13,357.41 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, payable within 30 days.

Dispute over the calculation of a CPI-based Indexing Factor for annuity payments under a testamentary trust.

The testatrix's will established a testamentary trust providing the respondent beneficiary with an annuity, with the Indexing Factor to be determined by the trustees using the Consumer Price Index.

The respondent beneficiary challenged the trustee's CPI calculation methodology, arguing the wrong CPI chart, wrong date, and wrong calculation approach were used.

The court held that the will conferred discretion on the trustees to determine the Indexing Factor, and that determination was conclusive and binding on all beneficiaries absent bad faith.

In the alternative, the court found the trustee's calculations were correct, consistent with Statistics Canada methodology and the will's terms.

Following convictions after a judge-alone trial for sexual assault, uttering threats, arson, and break and enter arising from intimate-partner violence incidents, the court determined a fit custodial sentence by balancing denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and totality.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite substantial post-offence rehabilitation and sobriety efforts, emphasizing the gravity of the sexual assault and intentional fire-setting.

The court imposed consecutive and concurrent terms, reduced the aggregate sentence under totality, and further reduced it for restrictive bail conditions in part.

The court declined to impose a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order under s. 490.012(3), finding it unnecessary on the facts.

The applicant mother brought a motion to enforce a consent order requiring the respondent father to comply with a court-ordered therapeutic reunification process and to provide photographs and weekly updates about the children.

Over 5.5 years of litigation, multiple clinicians found the father obstructed the children's relationship with the mother, while psychological assessments confirmed the mother posed no risk to the children.

The court found multiple breaches of the consent order, declined to exercise its discretion in favour of the non-complying father given his pattern of chronic non-compliance, and imposed monetary penalties under Rule 1(8)(a.1) of the Family Law Rules to incentivize future compliance with the therapeutic process.

The applicant brought a motion for outstanding financial disclosure in a long-running family law matter involving child support, spousal support, section 7 expenses, and equalization of net family property.

The respondent, a self-employed dentist operating multiple dental practices, brought a cross-motion for disclosure regarding the matrimonial home.

The court granted the majority of the applicant's disclosure requests, finding the respondent's financial records relevant to assessing whether a disconnect exists between his reported income and lifestyle, and noting that two prior disclosure orders remained unfulfilled.

The court declined certain requests as premature, including those affecting non-parties who had not been served.

The respondent's cross-motion regarding the matrimonial home was granted.

Ninety days was provided for compliance with most items.

The defendant insurer moved to set aside a noting in default entered after it failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The plaintiff, a self-represented lawyer, had buried the demand for a defence in a lengthy email and subsequently continued communications without disclosing the noting in default.

The court applied the framework from Trayanov v. Icetrading Inc., weighing delay, party conduct, claim complexity, prejudice, and the merits of the defence.

Finding the delay adequately explained, the balance of prejudice favoured the defendant, and the claim's $1.5 million value warranted adjudication on the merits, the court granted the motion.

Costs were fixed on a partial indemnity basis at $3,250, payable at the conclusion of litigation in any event of the cause.

The accused, charged with ten firearm offences and one count of possession of cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun and cocaine seized from him, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found the investigative detention was lawfully grounded in reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the officer's observation of a suspected drug transaction at a location of prior drug activity.

While a s. 10(b) breach was established due to a nearly two-minute delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel upon detention, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach arose from a mistake rather than deliberate misconduct, had minimal impact on Charter-protected interests, and the reliable physical evidence was central to serious charges.

The defendant brought a motion to lift a stay and dismiss a proposed class proceeding commenced in 2008 that never advanced to the certification stage.

Parallel proceedings in British Columbia and Quebec had concluded with modest recoveries for narrow classes.

Plaintiff's counsel had lost contact with the nominal plaintiff and consented to dismissal.

The court dismissed the action for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the plaintiff had not moved for certification within the prescribed time.

The court required class counsel to publish notice of the dismissal on the firm's website but declined to order further notification steps, given the minor nature of the claims and the absence of any class member registry.