Criminal Law

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.

When Reconciliation Meets Denunciation: Gladue and the Supreme Court’s Challenge in R v Cope

In early 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Cope, a split decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The primary question of law on appeal concerns how sentencing judges should balance the reconciliatory imperatives of R v Gladue, and R v Ipeelee, with Parliament’s emphasis on denunciation and deterrence as primary considerations in cases involving violence against Indigenous women.

Crown Concessions and Appellate Authority in R v Bouvette

In R v Bouvette [“Bouvette”], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confronted a remedial question at the intersection of prosecutorial discretion and appellate authority. When a conviction is quashed for miscarriage of justice, in what circumstances should a court of appeal enter an acquittal rather than order a new trial or impose a judicial stay, […]

R v Pan and the Price of Fairness: An “Air of Reality” in A Complex Jury Trial

In R v Pan, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the scope of the “air of reality” test as it applies to included offences in jury trials. The majority has upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s verdict that Jennifer Pan should undergo a new trial regarding her initial first-degree murder charge, but maintained her conviction related to the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge erred by failing to leave lesser included offences, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, to the jury where there was a realistic possibility of conviction on those offences.

R v Larocque: The Presumption of Accuracy Meets the Presumption of Innocence

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R v Larocque, 2025 SCC 36 [Larocque] addresses the scope of the evidentiary shortcuts available to the Crown in impaired driving prosecutions. Specifically, the SCC clarified what must be proven before the statutory presumption that breath test results are accurate can apply and whether the “target value” […]

Section 495 of the Criminal Code Finds its Meaning in R v Carignan

Fifty-four years after Parliament passed the Bail Reform Act, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the law with respect to challenging the lawfulness of an arrest without a warrant. The unanimous judgment in R v Carignan, 2025 SCC 43 authored by Justice Côté interprets subsections 495(2) and (3) of the Criminal Code which had originally been enacted as part of the Bail Reform Act. This judgment is significant as it allows accused persons to establish a breach of their Charter right to be free from arbitrary arrest where their arrest was made contrary to subsection 495(2).

Who Decides What the Jury Decides? R v BF and the Air-of-Reality Threshold

On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v BF, restoring a conviction for attempted murder and rejecting the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s holding that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on a potential defence. In doing so, the SCC engaged with a fundamental question arising in the case: whether there was any air of reality to the theory that, rather than attempted murder, the accused was aiding a suicide attempt.

Dorsey: To Judicially Review or not to Judicially Review, That is the Question

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.

Trial Fitness Clarified: The SCC’s Approach in R v Bharwani

When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in R v Bharwani, it represented the first instance in over three decades that the highest court had the opportunity to interpret section 2 of the Criminal Code, since Parliament established the statutory definition for “unfit to stand trial” in 1991. Canadian mental disorder jurisprudence has come a long way in the previous three decades, but fitness—an issue central to the accused’s autonomy, trial fairness, and the “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” regime—remains largely governed by Taylor, an integral, but pre-Charter-evolution decision.

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.