Home »

Shanaya Harjai

Shanaya is a 2L J.D. candidate at Osgoode. During 1L, she worked as a Junior Caseworker in the Criminal Law Division at the Community & Legal Aid Services Program (CLASP) and competed in several moots, placing as a finalist in the Frozen Open Osgoode Moot, winning top oralist in the Lerner’s Cup, and representing Osgoode at the Cassels “Baby Gale” Cup. She holds a Bachelor of Social Work from the University of Calgary, where she served as President of the Moot Court Society and led research on the impacts of COVID-19 in long-term care. Shanaya also worked as a social worker with marginalized youth at the Elizabeth Fry Society of Calgary – a nonprofit restorative justice organization – appearing in court to support Indigenous clients. Most recently, she summered at Aird Berlis LLP. This year, she will compete at the International Criminal Court Moot and serve as Ethics Officer of the Osgoode Mooting Society.

APPEAL WATCH: Old Leases, Same Law? ONCA Reaffirms “No Duty to Mitigate” in Aphria

Posted on 12 November 2025

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.

R v Kinamore: The Problem with Perfect Symmetry in Sexual Assault Trials

Posted on 31 October 2025

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.