On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment in St. John’s International Airport Authority v Thibodeau, 2024 FCA 197. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to define the boundaries of a purposive analysis under the modern approach to statutory interpretation.
In Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada marks not only an important victory for inmates in federal correctional facilities but also a step forward in the application of access to justice arguments in administrative law. As the decision underscores, Dorsey will play an important role in shaping both habeas corpus case law and assessing the degree of access to justice in complex administrative regimes.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 reveals fault lines in the current approach to granting remedies on judicial review. The resulting uncertainty risks undermining the principle of predictability in the administrative state. In short, Pepa has significant consequences for administrative decision-makers and applicants seeking judicial review, particularly with respect to statutory interpretation.
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.
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.
Airline passengers in Canada recently scored an important win regarding consumer protection. In International Air Transportation Association v Canada (Transportation Agency), 2024 SCC 30 [International Air], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously held that the Canada Transportation Agency’s (the “Agency”) Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150 [Regulations] were valid regulations that did not violate the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, 2242 UNTS 309 [Montreal Convention].
What standard of review applies when reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation? In the post-Vavilov era, this question has been the subject of conflicting appellate guidance. The Alberta Court of Appeal in this case followed the “hyper-deferential” standard that the Supreme Court (“SCC”) set in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care) […]
In York Region District School Board v Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2024 SCC 22 [YRDSB], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) reviewed an arbitrator’s decision regarding the reasonable expectation of privacy of two teachers at an Ontario public school. The majority conducted a correctness review to set aside the arbitrator’s decision, holding that the […]
In Canadian Frontline Nurses v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 FC 42 [CFN], the Federal Court (“FC”) considered an application for judicial review challenging the federal government’s invocation of the Emergencies Act, RSC 1985, c 22 in the wake of the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests. The FC granted the application, holding that the invocation of the […]
The Supreme Court has recognized that habeas corpus is “the strongest tool a prisoner has to ensure that the deprivation of his or her liberty is not unlawful” (Mission Institution v Khela, 2014 SCC 24 at para 29 [Khela]). In Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), the Court will decide [41132] whether that tool is available […]