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?
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. 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.