SCJ 2026

The plaintiffs successfully obtained an anti-suit injunction to halt an arbitration commenced by the defendants in Hong Kong, which was found to be an abusive collateral attack on prior Ontario rulings.

The plaintiffs sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $261,900 in substantial indemnity costs, emphasizing the defendants' vexatious and oppressive tactics in pursuing the foreign arbitration and threatening the representative plaintiffs with personal financial jeopardy.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting a stranger in an LCBO parking lot following a verbal dispute over social distancing.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the public nature of the shooting and the devastating impact on the victim's family, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a life sentence with a 14-year period of parole ineligibility, along with mandatory weapons prohibition, DNA, and non-communication orders.

Following a trial in a construction dispute, the court issued an addendum correcting a tabulation error, resulting in an increased damages award of $179,681.59 to the plaintiff.

On the issue of costs, the court found the defendant was substantially successful on liability but reduced its costs recovery because it failed to prove the majority of its claimed damages.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for full indemnity costs under the subcontract, awarding $415,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was awarded prejudgment interest at 2% per annum from the date the project was substantially performed.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Amended Reply on the basis that they improperly referred to settlement discussions.

The plaintiff argued the motion was out of time because the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff knew the motion was forthcoming.

Applying the test for settlement privilege, the court struck the impugned paragraphs, finding they improperly disclosed settlement negotiations, offers regarding damages, and alleged admissions made during those discussions.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for the repayment of loans totaling $193,500.

After obtaining a partial judgment for $170,000, which the defendant eventually paid to avoid a sheriff's sale of his property, the plaintiffs moved to discontinue the balance of the action and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant opposed the costs request, making baseless allegations of misconduct against the plaintiffs' counsel.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the proceedings to be evasive, inflammatory, and responsible for unnecessary delays and costs.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of the proceeding on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $32,000.

The applicant wife brought an urgent without-notice motion for a restraining order under s. 46 of the Family Law Act against the respondent husband, who had been accused of running a Ponzi-type scheme and whose conduct since separation included a barrage of threatening emails and text messages demanding money.

The court found that while the applicant subjectively feared for her safety, the evidence did not objectively establish reasonable grounds to conclude her safety was at risk, and declined to grant the restraining order.

However, the court granted a non-contact order under s. 47.1 of the FLA, prohibiting the respondent from contacting the applicant except through counsel and from coming within 200 metres of the former matrimonial home, the applicant's workplace, and her mother's home, for a period of 14 days.

The plaintiff homeowner sued the defendant contractor for breach of contract and unjust enrichment arising from a home renovation project, seeking damages for incomplete and deficient work.

The defendant counterclaimed for unpaid extra work.

The court found that the parties had a binding fixed-price contract for the initial scope of work and that the plaintiff had authorized specific extras.

The court concluded the plaintiff underpaid the defendant by $7,220.50 for the authorized extras, but also found the defendant liable for $10,731.46 in construction deficiencies.

Both the claim and counterclaim were allowed in part.

The respondent mother experienced a mental health crisis and was hospitalized, during which time the child stayed with the applicant father.

After the mother stabilized and was discharged, the father refused to return the child, engaging in self-help to establish a new status quo.

Both parties brought motions seeking urgent relief regarding parenting time and decision-making.

The court dismissed the requests for urgency, finding that the mother's mental health condition was stable, she was following her treatment plan, and a safety plan was in place.

The court emphasized that a parent's mental illness does not automatically justify limiting parenting time and cautioned against relying on stigma and stereotypes in family law proceedings.

During a murder trial, counsel for one co-accused renewed an application to recall two witnesses to testify about the deceased's general reputation for violence and aggression, arguing that the evidentiary basis had changed since both co-accused had now testified.

The court had previously permitted specific Scopelliti evidence of the deceased's prior acts of weaponized intimidation but denied broader character evidence.

The court found that the law and reasons from its prior ruling continued to apply and denied the renewed request, noting that unlike the other co-accused who had established an air of reality for self-defence, the moving co-accused had not satisfied that threshold.

The self-represented applicant brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an assessment officer's report fixing her former lawyers' account at $27,431.62 plus $35,000 in costs.

The applicant had entered into a 33% contingency fee agreement for a statutory accident benefits claim, which stipulated hourly billing if terminated.

The applicant terminated the retainer and hired new counsel who settled the claim for $90,000 and took a 30% contingency fee.

The Superior Court of Justice found the assessment officer erred in principle by failing to consider the client's reasonable expectation of the fee and the overall amount paid by the client.

The court reduced the assessed fee and disbursements to $12,993 and set aside the $35,000 cost award, finding it was not proportionate or reasonable.

The self-represented accused brought a stage one O'Connor application seeking production of various records from the Ministry of the Solicitor General, including policies on inmate transfers, the SAFER program, security video, and movement logs.

The accused argued these records were relevant to an anticipated Charter application alleging that his transfers and institutional restrictions impeded his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court granted the application in part, ordering the Ministry to produce relevant policies and specific movement records to the court for stage two review, while dismissing requests for broad video footage and unrelated inmate records that failed to meet the 'likely relevant' threshold.

The applicant sought leave to commence a derivative action on behalf of the company against the respondent, who allegedly took corporate funds for personal use without authorization.

The parties were the sole directors and equal voting shareholders, resulting in corporate gridlock.

The court found the applicant met the requirements under section 239 of the Canadian Business Corporations Act, including providing proper notice, acting in good faith, and showing the action was in the company's interest.

Leave was granted, and the company was ordered to pay the applicant's reasonable legal fees, with the ultimate amount to be determined at trial.

The self-represented plaintiff and the defendants brought competing motions regarding the plaintiff's examination for discovery in a professional negligence action against her former real estate lawyers.

The plaintiff sought orders declaring her undertakings satisfied and noting the defendants in default, while the defendants moved to compel answers to undertakings and refusals.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion as being without merit and granted the defendants' motion, ordering the plaintiff to make best efforts to obtain and produce relevant documents, including mortgage files, appraisals, and family law records, and to re-attend for further examination.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $6,000 in costs.

The respondent in an ongoing shareholder dispute brought a motion requesting that the presiding judge recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party alleged that the judge's comments during a previous hearing regarding his illiteracy demonstrated prejudgment and ableism.

The court dismissed the recusal motion, finding that the comments were inquiries into the moving party's ability to complete complex commercial transactions and did not meet the objective test for a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court granted leave to file new evidence regarding an updated agreement of purchase and sale.

The moving party, Greenmark Builders Inc., was successful on a motion to stay a Small Claims Court action commenced by a sub-contractor, Harding Mechanical Contractors, pending the outcome of a related construction lien action in the Superior Court.

The court awarded Greenmark costs of the motion, fixing them at $5,000 payable by Harding forthwith, and an additional $5,000 payable by the homeowners as costs in the cause, noting that the homeowners and Greenmark had unreasonably frustrated the resolution of Harding's claim.

The self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment against their former lawyer and his law firm for misappropriation of trust funds.

The lawyer had directed the plaintiffs' mortgage loan proceeds to the firm's trust account despite knowing the firm was under investigation by the Law Society for a significant trust shortage.

The funds were subsequently withdrawn.

The court found the lawyer liable for civil fraud, awarded compensatory damages for the lost funds, and awarded $50,000 in punitive damages for his reprehensible conduct.

The court declined to declare that the judgment survives bankruptcy as premature.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's administrative dismissal of his malicious prosecution action.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the defendant suffered actual prejudice.

The court also held that even if the dismissal were set aside, the action would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious because the plaintiff could not establish the elements of malicious prosecution, given that the police independently laid the charges and the plaintiff pled guilty to assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to second degree murder for his role in a fatal attack on the victim.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that the period of parole ineligibility should be set at the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The court considered the accused's Indigenous background, Gladue factors, his guilty plea, and his lesser role compared to his co-accused brother.

Applying the Anthony-Cook test, the court accepted the joint submission and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 10 years.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action for delay and failure to comply with multiple court orders.

The action arose from a 2008 motor vehicle accident and had been plagued by delays, including being struck from the trial list and twice dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff, a party under disability, failed to retain counsel or comply with numerous undertakings and production orders despite multiple extensions.

The court found the delay inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice.

The action was dismissed, but the court declined to award costs against the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing her former friend during an altercation.

The incident followed a series of escalating disputes over social media and text messages, culminating in the victim and her friends attending the accused's home armed with weapons and making threats.

The accused, believing the victim was armed with a knife, stabbed the victim during a physical confrontation in the parking lot.

The court found that the Crown failed to disprove the elements of self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, concluding that the accused reasonably believed she was being attacked, acted for a defensive purpose, and responded reasonably in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted.