1-25 of 2,314 results
-
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia: How Should the Law Confront Intimate Partner Violence?|
In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court of Canada reckoned with the largely-gendered harms of intimate partner violence. Justice Kasirer established a framework for developing new intentional torts, created a new tort of intimate partner violence to combat the distinct wrong of coercive control, and clarified the overlapping roles that tort and family law play for seeking justice and compensating victims. While the Court’s decision provided some needed clarity, it also raised as many questions as it answered, leaving unaddressed issues to be resolved in future decisions. -
Police Misconduct and the Duty to Disclose: Edmonton (Police Service) v McKee|
Does an accused have a right to the disclosure of an administratively expunged record of police misconduct? In Edmonton (Police Service) v McKee, the SCC clarified Canada's criminal disclosure framework, holding that police must transmit obviously relevant misconduct information to the Crown, which ultimately determines what must be disclosed to protect an accused's right to make full answer and defence. -
Knocking on Singer's Door: The Implied Licence Doctrine in R v Singer, 2026 SCC 8|
In R v Singer, 2026 SCC 8 [Singer], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) considered the scope of implied licences and the admissibility of evidence that was illegally obtained during an impaired driving investigation. -
‘Excusez Moi?’: Language Rights in Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick v Canada (Prime Minister)|
Language rights in Canada have a broad history. There is perhaps no province that embodies this commitment quite like New Brunswick, given its status as the only official bilingual province in Canada. In Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick v Canada (Prime Minister) 2026 SCC 22 [Nouveau-Brunswick], the Supreme Court (SCC) contends with applying Charter protected […] -
Delete at Your Own Risk: Spoliation in SS&C Technologies v BNY Mellon|
Destroying evidence should never leave a party better off. In SS&C Technologies Canada Corp v Bank of New York Mellon Corp, the Supreme Court of Canada considered how courts should address situations when a party intentionally deletes evidence relevant to the calculation of damages. For the first time in more than a century, the Court clarified the law of spoliation. I suggest that while the Court shows how far the resulting adverse inference can go in the most severe cases, it leaves trial judges unsure when to go that far. -
Ceiling or No Ceiling? R v R.B.-C. and When Sentencing Delay Becomes Unreasonable|
In R v R.B.-C., the Supreme Court of Canada was asked to apply a presumptive ceiling to determine when sentencing delay breaches s. 11(b) of the Charter. Justice Martin declined to do so, holding instead that the test is a ‘markedly longer’ standard. She also held that the correct remedy for unreasonable sentencing delay is a reduction in sentence. This unanimous decision from the Court reveals how it views judges as normative actors within the Canadian criminal justice system. -
R v Nguyen: Can Property Be Forfeited After a Stay of Proceedings?|
A stay of criminal proceedings ends an accused’s prosecution, but does it also prevent the Crown from seeking forfeiture of property allegedly connected to criminal activity? In R v Nguyen, 2026 SCC 10 [Nguyen], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) considered whether the Crown could pursue forfeiture after criminal proceedings were stayed […] -
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. -
Patentability of Methods of Medical Treatment: MMT Doctrine Affirmed in Janssen v Pharmascience, 2026 SCC 26|
In Janssen v Pharmascience 2026 SCC 26 [Janssen], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) affirmed the methods of medical treatment (“MMT”) doctrine in patent law, confirming that MMTs are unpatentable subject matter in Canadian Law under s. 2 of the Patent Act, RSC, 1985, c P-4 [the Act]. Though this has been the state of the law for over 50 years, two judges disagreed on this point, arguing that since the repeal of s. 41(1) of the Act in 1993, there has been no statutory basis for a blanket prohibition on the patentability of MMTs. -
Asking "What If?": Judicial Hypotheticals in Quebec (AG) v Denis, 2026 SCC 25|
“What if?” is a question rooted in curiosity. Hypotheticals are a valuable tool for constitutional analysis that may allow courts to test the limits of legislation beyond the facts before them. However, balancing an individual’s Charter rights with statutory interpretation raises an important question: should there be parameters of a hypothetical scenario analyzed by the […] -
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 […]