1-9 of 2,276 results
-
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. -
Fresh Starts and Student Loans: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Approach in Piekut|
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Piekut v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 13 (“Piekut”) resolves a long-standing dispute over when student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy. At issue was whether the seven-year waiting period in s. 178(1)(g)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) runs from any cessation of studies or only from […] -
Reasonable Findings, Questionable Remedies: the SCC on Remitting Matters on Judicial Review in Pepa|
The Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 reveals fault lines in the current approach to granting remedies on judicial review. The resulting uncertainty risks undermining the principle of predictability in the administrative state. In short, Pepa has significant consequences for administrative decision-makers and applicants seeking judicial review, particularly with respect to statutory interpretation. -
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. -
Pandemic Pressures and Procedural Justice: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Approach in R v Varennes|
The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. Varennes 2025 SCC 22 ("Varennes") highlights the tension between prosecutorial discretion, judicial oversight, and the protection of Charter rights under extraordinary circumstances. Varennes addresses whether a trial judge can order a judge-alone trial over the Crown’s objection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCC’s reasoning navigates […] -
R v Kloubakov : Post-Bedford Sex Trade Offences Withstand Constitutional Scrutiny|
In R v Kloubakov, 2025 SCC 25, the Supreme Court of Canada has affirmed that offences directed toward regulating the sex industry can withstand constitutional scrutiny as long as they are carefully drafted to target exploitation of sex workers, rather than sex workers themselves. -
Van Breda Revisited: the SCC on Jurisdiction Simpliciter in Sinclair|
This summer, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo, 2025 SCC 27. In a 5-4 ruling, the majority clarified how to determine a court’s jurisdiction simpliciter. This case has significant implications for businesses offering services to Canadians abroad. -
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: Old Leases, Same Law? ONCA Reaffirms “No Duty to Mitigate” in Aphria|
In June 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Canada Life Assurance Company v. Aphria Inc,. The Court's decision reaffirms that when a commercial landlord does not accept a tenant's repudiation of a lease and insists the lease remain in full effect, the landlord has no duty to mitigate the resulting damages. This decision adheres to the binding authority of Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd., where the SCC outlined four actions a landlord can take in response to a tenant's fundamental breach.