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.
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.
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.
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”) 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 […]
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has dismissed the appeal in R v Stevenson, 2024 SCC 41 [Stevenson], upholding a trial judge’s decision to convict based on the evidence of an unsavoury or Vetrovec witness. This case was heard by the SCC as of right from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (“SKCA”) 2024 SKCA 40 […]
The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in R v Charles, 2024 SCC 29 [Charles] has clarified the approach to using corroborative evidence to establish the reliability of hearsay evidence. Moreau J, writing for the majority, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that an out-of-court statement by a witness at trial […]
In R v Kruk, 2024 SCC 7 [Kruk], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) rejected the “rule against common-sense assumptions,” affirming the importance and necessity of trial judges’ common-sense reasoning to their credibility assessments. This decision is significant for two reasons: (1) it sets out the narrow role that myths and stereotypes as legal errors […]