Cooperative Federalism in Peril? The SCC Revitalizes the Doctrine of Interjurisdictional Immunity in Opsis

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.

APPEAL WATCH: The Opportunity to Clarify Contributory Fault in Contract Law and Revisit Summary Judgment Motions in Arcamm v Avison Young

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.

Truth vs. Fairness in Sentencing: Lessons from R v Di Paola

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.

R v Kinamore: The Problem with Perfect Symmetry in Sexual Assault Trials

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.

A Modern Approach to a Modern Problem? The SCC’s ruling in Telus Communications Inc.

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.

Make Yourself at Home: The SCC Grants Squatter’s Rights on Municipal Land

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 […]

R v Jaser and the Supreme Court’s Silence on National Security Appeals

In August 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear Raed Jaser’s latest appeal in the high-profile terrorism prosecution arising from the 2013 VIA Rail plot. As is customary in leave to appeal decisions, no reasons were provided.

The Right to Know: SCC Strikes Down Election Spending Limits for Third Parties in Working Families

In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc., 2025 SCC 5, [Working Families], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) held that the spending limits imposed by the Ontario government on third parties for political advertising infringed section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Kohli v Thom: Relocation, Family Violence, and the Limits of Income Imputation

In Kohli v Thom, the Court of Appeal for Ontario tackled two recurring flashpoints in modern family litigation: (1) whether a parent who has survived intimate-partner violence may relocate with a young child over the objection of the other parent; and (2) how a court should treat the survivor’s earning capacity when assessing child and spousal support.

R v JW: Programming-Based Sentencing, “Wrongful Conduct,” and Enhanced Credit

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v JW addresses two intertwined controversies in Canadian sentencing law. First, it clarifies whether—and how—a sentencing judge may take account of the time an offender is likely to need to complete institutional programming when setting a custodial term. Second, it refines the meaning of “wrongful conduct” for the purpose of denying enhanced pre-sentence credit under s 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.