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.

Who Decides What the Jury Decides? R v BF and the Air-of-Reality Threshold

Posted on 28 January 2026

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.

Trial Fitness Clarified: The SCC’s Approach in R v Bharwani

Posted on 29 November 2025

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.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Use of Compelled Accident Statements in Korduner

Posted on 21 November 2025

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.

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.