Procedural Law

Can a Failed Candidate Sue an Election Official? In Resler v Anglin the SCC Says Yes

In Resler v Anglin, the Supreme Court of Canada confronted two fundamental interests seemingly at odds: the integrity of elections and the right to seek compensation for civil wrongs. The majority held that an unsuccessful election candidate's claim for damages was not barred by abuse of process or collateral attack doctrines, and that the election official was not protected by statutory immunity or parliamentary privilege. The justices also differed on the availability of loss of chance damages in the electoral context.

La Forest’s Corbett: Hussein and the Corbett Framework 

In R v Hussein, the SCC clarified the Corbett application. While the Corbett application has been upheld, albeit with clarifications, this Comment compares Hussein with the original R v Corbett case and argues that Hussein appears to favour La Forest J.’s Corbett dissent. 

Being At Home: The Children’s Law Reform Act and Jurisdiction in Dunmore v Mehralian

In Dunmore v Mehralian, the Supreme Court of Canada provided an answer to the question: what does it mean for a child to be habitually resident in a place?

Siloing Evidence: Rioux and Errors of Law in Crown Appeals of Acquittals

R v Rioux was crowned the “Raspberry Award” for being the worst Supreme Court of Canada decision of 2025. While the award might be in jest, the implications of Rioux certainly are not, especially for the increased possibility of the reversal of an acquittal. In my analysis, I suggest that the majority’s decision in Rioux is contrary to the SCC’s deference considerations when determining an error of law. I also suggest that the SCC has expanded the concept of error of law. 

When an Unsuccessful Seizure Interrupts Prescription: Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre

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 […]

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.

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.

APPEAL WATCH: Slapping Back on Anti-SLAPP Motions (Benchwood Builders, Inc v Prescott)

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.

APPEAL WATCH: The Opportunity to Clarify Contributory Fault in Contract Law and Revisit Summary Judgment Motions in Arcamm v Avison Young

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.

R v Kinamore: The Problem with Perfect Symmetry in Sexual Assault Trials

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.