Constitutional Law

Arrest Ex Nihilo: Wilson and the SCC’s Many Modern Approaches

In R. v. Wilson, the Court disagreed over a word that didn’t exist. In s. 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, those who call emergency services to save a person experiencing an overdose are immunized from being charged or convicted of drug possession. However, the provision does not include the word “arrest.” Despite this, the Court held that the provision also immunizes "good Samaritans" from arrest for drug possession using a purpose-laden modern approach to statutory interpretation.

Beyond Neutrality: Kanyinda, s. 15(1), and the Limits of Facial Equality

In Quebec (Attorney General) v Kanyinda, the SCC considered whether the provincial subsidized childcare regime of Quebec violates the equality rights guaranteed under s. 15(1) of Charter. Karakatsanis J., writing for the majority, held that the provisions of the Reduced Contribution Regulation that excluded refugee claimants from eligibility to participate in the subsidized childcare program created adverse effects discrimination based on sex. Although facially neutral, the legislative scheme disproportionately impacted and burdened female refugee claimants, who are more likely to bear the primary burden of childcare responsibilities.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Revisit Principles of Fundamental Justice and Charter Damages in Named Persons

On February 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for British Columbia’s judgment in Named Persons v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCCA 197. This appeal provides the SCC with an opportunity to clarify the scope and application of s 7 principles of fundamental justice and s 24(1) damages under the Charter.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Decide on the Scope of Core Jurisdiction in Ontario Place Protectors

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Ontario Place Protectors v Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to clarify whether the public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law and the scope of the superior courts’ core jurisdiction in the context of Crown immunity.

Could Quebec v Senneville Foreshadow the End of Reasonable Hypotheticals under Section 12 of the Charter?

Quebec v Senneville, 2025 SCC 33 is a publicly polarizing yet legally unsurprising decision of the SCC. Senneville affirms that the 1-year mandatory minimum sentences associated with the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography when prosecuted by indictment are contrary to section 12 of the Charter. However, only a narrow five-judge majority arrived at this conclusion, while four dissenting judges stopped short of a complete analysis.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Role of Purposive Analysis under Language Rights Legislation in Thibodeau

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.

What Remains of Section 28 After the QCCA’s Bill 21 Decision?

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.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Use of Compelled Accident Statements in Korduner

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.

R v Kloubakov : Post-Bedford Sex Trade Offences Withstand Constitutional Scrutiny

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.

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.