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.
The Quebec Court of Appeal’s (“QCCA”) decision in Organisation mondiale sikhe du Canada c. Procureur général du Québec brings forward a constitutional question the Supreme Court of Canada will soon have to address directly: does section 28 of the Charter possess any independent legal force, or can its equality guarantee be displaced entirely through a section 33 declaration? The result of that decision is stark: the QCCA treats section 28 as having no independent force, no interpretive weight, and no residual function once the rights it echoes are suspended.
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Korduner, a split decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal that examines the extent of use immunity for statutorily compelled statements. In particular, the SCC may wish to examine whether a statement given by a motorist who has an honest and reasonably held belief that they are statutorily compelled can be used as the reasonable grounds necessary to compel an evidentiary breath test pursuant to s.320.28 of the Criminal Code.
In R v Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that offences directed toward regulating the sex industry can withstand constitutional scrutiny as long as they are carefully drafted to target exploitation of sex workers, rather than sex workers themselves.
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.
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.
In R v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 (“Campbell”), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) weighed in on whether the police had lawful authority to use the cellphone of a drug dealer without a warrant to continue a text message conversation with an alleged drug distributor. In a 6-3 split, the SCC held that while there was a violation of section 8 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms [“Charter”], the warrantless search of Mr. Campbell was justified under the exigent circumstances exception outlined in section 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”).
In the Acadian Society of New Brunswick v The Right Honorable Prime Minister of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will decide whether the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick must be bilingual [41398]. Overturning the decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (“NBQB”), the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (“NBCA”) ruled in the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada et al v. La Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick 2024 NBCA 70 (“SANB” ) that the appointment did not contravene the Charter's language provisions.
What gives way first — Parliament’s power to control its own process, or Parliamentarians’ right to speak freely without fear of prosecution? The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will soon grapple with this question. It has granted leave [41336] to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s (“ONCA”) decision in Alford v Canada (Attorney General), 2024 ONCA […]
In Sanis Health Inc v British Columbia, 2024 SCC 40 [Sanis], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) upheld British Columbia’s power to represent other Canadian governments in a national class action under its Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, SBC 2018, c 35 [ORA]. Nearly all provincial, territorial, and federal governments supported the […]