In Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre, 2025 SCC 30 (“Kanesatake”) the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether an unsuccessful attempt to execute a judgment can interrupt an extinctive prescription under Quebec civil law. The case arose after creditors filed and served a notice of execution against the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake but ultimately seized […]
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.
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.
Does an online review by an upset customer relate to a matter of public interest? How much harm arising from negative online reviews is sufficient to outweigh the public interest in protecting freedom of expression? These issues are central to the anti-SLAPP analysis in Benchwood Builders, Inc v Prescott, 2025 ONCA 171, leave to appeal granted.
The SCC has granted leave to appeal the decision in Arcamm v Avison Young, 2024 ONCA 925. The Court is expected to determine whether contributory fault governs the apportionment of damages arising from breach of contract, and to provide, for the first time in over a decade, renewed guidance on realizing the culture shift envisioned in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in R v Kinamore, clarifying that a complainant's sexual inactivity amounts to sexual history under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. Evidence of one’s sexual inactivity is therefore presumptively inadmissible unless first vetted through a voir dire, a pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility. The Court further clarified that this requirement applies regardless of which party introduces the evidence.
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) is set to hear the appeal of Nguyen c. Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions, 2024 QCCA 674 [Nguyen] where the Court of Appeal of Québec (“QCCA”) overturned the decision of the Court of Québec, which held that it had jurisdiction to hear the application of the prosecution [41400].
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has dismissed the appeal in Saskatchewan (Environment) v Métis Nation, 2025 SCC 4 [Métis Nation]. A unanimous court found that proceedings for judicial review which raise similar issues to ongoing or past litigation do not inherently amount to an abuse of process.
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will soon hear the appeal of R v Chizanga, 2024 ONCA 545 [Chizanga], in which it will opine on the principles of admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct [41405]. Building upon the seminal case of R v Handy, 2002 SCC 56 [Handy] which set out the principles for the admissibility of such evidence, this appeal […]
Solicitor-client privilege remains a fundamental right which is only displaced where absolutely necessary. The court in Sakab Saudi Holding Company v Al Jabri, 2025 ONSC 35 [Sakab Saudi] upheld the presumption of solicitor-client privilege protection to a law firm’s trust ledger but found that the motion judge erred in extending that same presumption to the […]