1-25 of 2,304 results
-
Annual Symposium on Contract Law|
The Annual Symposium on Contract Law takes place on December 1, 2026. -
Inmate Discipline: Correctional Institutions and the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard Clarified in John Howard Society v Saskatchewan|
In John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada expanded the meaning of “imprisonment” under the “true penal consequence” test to include inmate disciplinary offences governed by Saskatchewan’s Correctional Services Regulations. The Court found that s. 68 of the Regulations, which governs the standard of proof for finding an inmate responsible for a disciplinary offence, was inconsistent with ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter, because it required proof on a balance of probabilities. -
“Um You Should Know What That Means”: R v Fox and Solicitor-Client Privilege|
Law students typically learn about solicitor-client privilege as centred around the client. This privilege, so I was taught, ensures that clients can be frank with their lawyer; with the benefit of full disclosure from their client, lawyers can make the best case for their client. The facts in R v Fox turn this paradigm on its head: what if privilege is claimed not to protect the client, but the lawyer? -
Travel Bans in Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador: Locating an Interprovincial Mobility Right|
Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador marks the first case wherein the Supreme Court of Canada has heard a constitutional challenge borne out of an emergency measure adopted during the COVID-19 crisis. In Taylor, the SCC contemplated where an interprovincial mobility right is located within section 6 of the Charter. -
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. -
Sentencing Maturity: SCC Speaks on the Youth Criminal Justice Act in R v I.M.|
In R v I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that the standard of proof to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, which governs the imposition of adult sentences for youth, is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. -
Arrest Ex Nihilo: Wilson and the SCC’s Many Modern Approaches|
In R. v. Wilson, the Court disagreed over a word that didn’t exist. In s. 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, those who call emergency services to save a person experiencing an overdose are immunized from being charged or convicted of drug possession. However, the provision does not include the word “arrest.” Despite this, the Court held that the provision also immunizes "good Samaritans" from arrest for drug possession using a purpose-laden modern approach to statutory interpretation. -
Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co: When “Guaranteed” Coverage Isn’t Guaranteed|
In Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada considered the interaction between a guaranteed replacement cost endorsement and a compliance cost exclusion in a standard form insurance policy. The case required the SCC to determine whether insurers must cover the full cost of rebuilding in accordance with existing legal requirements, or whether such costs can be excluded despite language suggesting “guaranteed” coverage. In resolving this issue, the SCC clarified the proper approach to interpreting insurance endorsements, the scope of compliance cost exclusions, and the role of the nullification of coverage doctrine. -
Beyond Neutrality: Kanyinda, s. 15(1), and the Limits of Facial Equality|
In Quebec (Attorney General) v Kanyinda, the SCC considered whether the provincial subsidized childcare regime of Quebec violates the equality rights guaranteed under s. 15(1) of Charter. Karakatsanis J., writing for the majority, held that the provisions of the Reduced Contribution Regulation that excluded refugee claimants from eligibility to participate in the subsidized childcare program created adverse effects discrimination based on sex. Although facially neutral, the legislative scheme disproportionately impacted and burdened female refugee claimants, who are more likely to bear the primary burden of childcare responsibilities. -
APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Revisit Principles of Fundamental Justice and Charter Damages in Named Persons|
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. -
Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Co.: Can the common law be changed with prospective-only effect?|
In February 2026, the SCC heard the appeal in Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Co. The question presented asks whether commercial landlords who reject a tenant’s lease repudiation are subject to the doctrine of mitigation. On its face the case seems to be of niche interest: significant for commercial property and contract lawyers, of course, but perhaps a dry topic for others. Far from it. As became apparent during oral arguments before the SCC, the appeal in Aphria puts in issue fundamental principles regarding the nature of common law decision-making. -
APPEAL WATCH: Fair Election Outcomes and Unfair Election Processes (Anglin v Resler)|
The Supreme Court of Canada has heard the appeal from the judgment in Anglin v Resler, 2024 ABCA 113, leave to appeal to SCC granted (41298). This case is a high-stakes appeal from a motion to strike as it raises a single issue affecting Canadian voters and the integrity of elections: whether a defeated candidate can bring a tort claim against an election official based on an allegation that the candidate lost the opportunity to win the election due to the conduct of the election official. -
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 […] -
APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Decide on the Scope of Core Jurisdiction in Ontario Place Protectors|
The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Ontario Place Protectors v Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to clarify whether the public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law and the scope of the superior courts’ core jurisdiction in the context of Crown immunity. -
Could Quebec v Senneville Foreshadow the End of Reasonable Hypotheticals under Section 12 of the Charter?|
Quebec v Senneville, 2025 SCC 33 is a publicly polarizing yet legally unsurprising decision of the SCC. Senneville affirms that the 1-year mandatory minimum sentences associated with the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography when prosecuted by indictment are contrary to section 12 of the Charter. However, only a narrow five-judge majority arrived at this conclusion, while four dissenting judges stopped short of a complete analysis. -
When Reconciliation Meets Denunciation: Gladue and the Supreme Court’s Challenge in R v Cope|
In early 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Cope, a split decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The primary question of law on appeal concerns how sentencing judges should balance the reconciliatory imperatives of R v Gladue, and R v Ipeelee, with Parliament’s emphasis on denunciation and deterrence as primary considerations in cases involving violence against Indigenous women. -
Crown Concessions and Appellate Authority in R v Bouvette|
In R v Bouvette [“Bouvette”], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confronted a remedial question at the intersection of prosecutorial discretion and appellate authority. When a conviction is quashed for miscarriage of justice, in what circumstances should a court of appeal enter an acquittal rather than order a new trial or impose a judicial stay, […] -
APPEAL WATCH: Tax Law Nuances and Absurd Consequences in Bank of Nova Scotia v Canada|
Rarely does a tax law dispute reach the SCC, but when it does, it often provides a welcome opportunity for comprehensive statutory interpretation. Last month, the SCC heard an appeal from the unanimous FCA decision of Bank of Nova Scotia v Canada, 2024 FCA 192, leave to appeal granted (41643). -
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. -
APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Role of Purposive Analysis under Language Rights Legislation in Thibodeau|
On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment in St. John’s International Airport Authority v Thibodeau, 2024 FCA 197. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to define the boundaries of a purposive analysis under the modern approach to statutory interpretation. -
R v Larocque: The Presumption of Accuracy Meets the Presumption of Innocence|
The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R v Larocque, 2025 SCC 36 [Larocque] addresses the scope of the evidentiary shortcuts available to the Crown in impaired driving prosecutions. Specifically, the SCC clarified what must be proven before the statutory presumption that breath test results are accurate can apply and whether the “target value” […] -
Section 495 of the Criminal Code Finds its Meaning in R v Carignan|
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). -
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.