Our Latest Posts
TheCourt.ca is the premier source of commentary on, and analysis of, the work of the Supreme Court of Canada. Our goal is to be an inclusive forum for academics, practitioners and interested citizens to publish, review and discuss commentary on recent Supreme Court judgments, upcoming cases, current hearings, scholarly perspectives, practical insights, updates and more.
-
“Um You Should Know What That Means”: R v Fox and Solicitor-Client Privilege
|
Law students typically learn about solicitor-client privilege as centred around the client. This privilege, so I was taught, ensures that clients can be frank with their lawyer; with the benefit of full disclosure from their client, lawyers can make the best case for their client. The facts in R v Fox turn this paradigm on its head: what if privilege is claimed not to protect the client, but the lawyer?
-
Travel Bans in Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador: Locating an Interprovincial Mobility Right
|
Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador marks the first case wherein the Supreme Court of Canada has heard a constitutional challenge borne out of an emergency measure adopted during the COVID-19 crisis. In Taylor, the SCC contemplated where an interprovincial mobility right is located within section 6 of the Charter.
-
La Forest’s Corbett: Hussein and the Corbett Framework
|
In R v Hussein, the SCC clarified the Corbett application. While the Corbett application has been upheld, albeit with clarifications, this Comment compares Hussein with the original R v Corbett case and argues that Hussein appears to favour La Forest J.’s Corbett dissent.
-
Being At Home: The Children’s Law Reform Act and Jurisdiction in Dunmore v Mehralian
|
In Dunmore v Mehralian, the Supreme Court of Canada provided an answer to the question: what does it mean for a child to be habitually resident in a place?
-
Siloing Evidence: Rioux and Errors of Law in Crown Appeals of Acquittals
|
R v Rioux was crowned the “Raspberry Award” for being the worst Supreme Court of Canada decision of 2025. While the award might be in jest, the implications of Rioux certainly are not, especially for the increased possibility of the reversal of an acquittal. In my analysis, I suggest that the majority’s decision in Rioux is contrary to the SCC’s deference considerations when determining an error of law. I also suggest that the SCC has expanded the concept of error of law.
-
Sentencing Maturity: SCC Speaks on the Youth Criminal Justice Act in R v I.M.
|
In R v I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that the standard of proof to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, which governs the imposition of adult sentences for youth, is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.