“What if?” is a question rooted in curiosity. Hypotheticals are a valuable tool for constitutional analysis that may allow courts to test the limits of legislation beyond the facts before them. However, balancing an individual’s Charter rights with statutory interpretation raises an important question: should there be parameters of a hypothetical scenario analyzed by the […]
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.
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).
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. 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 R v Carignan [41186], the Supreme Court of Canada (“Supreme Court”) will — for the first time — interpret the scope of and relationship between ss 495(2) and 495(3) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Section 495 governs police powers to arrest without warrant. Subsections (2) and (3) of this provision have […]
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 […]
In R v Bykovets, 2024 SCC 6 [Bykovets], a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) found that Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses are protected by the right against unreasonable search and seizure in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [Charter]. Henceforth, police will require a search warrant to compel […]
In R v Breault, 2023 SCC 9 [Breault], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) settled a long-running dispute regarding the flexibility of the immediacy requirement in situations where a police officer demands a breath sample to be provided “forthwith” by a suspected impaired driver (Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 254(2)(b) as it appeared […]
The Court of Appeal for Ontario (the “ONCA”) has provided a sobering reminder about the importance of timely access to counsel. R v Whittaker, 2024 ONCA 182 [Whittaker] reinforces the notion that extended delays in accessing counsel will generally have an extensive impact on a detainee’s s. 10(b)-protected interests. In emphasizing the psychological benefits of […]