This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority clarified how to determine a court’s jurisdiction simpliciter. This case has significant implications for businesses offering services to Canadians abroad.
Does an online review by an upset customer relate to a matter of public interest? How much harm arising from negative online reviews is sufficient to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression? These issues are central to the anti-SLAPP analysis in Benchwood Builders, Inc v Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, leave to appeal granted.
In June 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Canada Life Assurance Company v. Aphria Inc,. The Court's decision reaffirms that when a commercial landlord does not accept a tenant's repudiation of a lease and insists the lease remain in full effect, the landlord has no duty to mitigate the resulting damages. This decision adheres to the binding authority of Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd., where the SCC outlined four actions a landlord can take in response to a tenant's fundamental breach.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. S.B., 2025 SCC 24 [S.B.] engages critical questions regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s (“YCJA”) framework for imposing adult sentences on young offenders. The role of social context evidence is central when evaluating whether the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under section 72(1) of the YCJA. This appeal tests the boundaries of how youth courts weigh personal and systemic circumstances against the judgement and maturity displayed through the planning of criminal conduct.
In Opsis Airport Services Inc v Quebec (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 17 [Opsis], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) refined the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity (“IJI”) test from its framework in Canadian Western Bank v Alberta, 2007 SCC 22 [Canadian Western Bank]. This case centres on whether Quebec’s Private Security Act, CQLR, c S-3.5 [PSA] impairs the core of certain federal heads of power. The Court’s finding of inapplicability on these facts represents a notable shift in the IJI analytical structure that carries significant implications for legislatures, administrative decision-makers, and the private sector.
The SCC has granted leave to appeal the decision in Arcamm v Avison Young, 2024 ONCA 925. The Court is expected to determine whether contributory fault governs the apportionment of damages arising from breach of contract, and to provide, for the first time in over a decade, renewed guidance on realizing the culture shift envisioned in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
In the decision of R v Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31 the Supreme Court of Canada examined how s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code should be interpreted during sentencing. The issue was whether a sentencing judge may consider, as aggravating factors, facts that could constitute a separate offence when that charge has already been laid but is no longer pending and has no rendered verdict. The Court’s decision clarifies both the scope of this provision and the Crown’s duty of fairness in presenting aggravating facts during sentencing.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in R v Kinamore, clarifying that a complainant's sexual inactivity amounts to sexual history under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. Evidence of one’s sexual inactivity is therefore presumptively inadmissible unless first vetted through a voir dire, a pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility. The Court further clarified that this requirement applies regardless of which party introduces the evidence.
This April, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Telus Communications Inc. v Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the majority held that “transmission line,” as contemplated under sections 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act, does not capture 5G network antennas.
In Kosicki v Toronto (City), 2025 SCC 28 [Kosicki], a narrow five-to-four majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted a Torontonian couple possessory title to a municipally owned strip of land in their backyard. Although Kosicki clarifies the law of adverse possession, the divided judgment reveals challenges in reconciling the common law with […]