Variam Manak Archives

Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co: When “Guaranteed” Coverage Isn’t Guaranteed

Posted on 22 March 2026

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.

When an Unsuccessful Seizure Interrupts Prescription: Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre

Posted on 5 March 2026

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 […]

Crown Concessions and Appellate Authority in R v Bouvette

Posted on 18 February 2026

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, […]

R v Larocque: The Presumption of Accuracy Meets the Presumption of Innocence

Posted on 5 February 2026

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” […]

Fresh Starts and Student Loans: Assessing the Supreme Court’s Approach in Piekut

Posted on 28 November 2025

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Piekut v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 SCC 13 (“Piekut”) resolves a long-standing dispute over when student loans become dischargeable in bankruptcy. At issue was whether the seven-year waiting period in s. 178(1)(g)(ii) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) runs from any cessation of studies or only from […]

Pandemic Pressures and Procedural Justice: Evaluating the Supreme Court’s Approach in R v Varennes

Posted on 20 November 2025

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. Varennes 2025 SCC 22 ("Varennes") highlights the tension between prosecutorial discretion, judicial oversight, and the protection of Charter rights under extraordinary circumstances. Varennes addresses whether a trial judge can order a judge-alone trial over the Crown’s objection during the COVID-19 pandemic. The SCC’s reasoning navigates […]

R v S.B.: Accountability, Youth Sentencing, and the Limits of Social Context

Posted on 7 November 2025

The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R. v. S.B., 2025 SCC 24 [S.B.] engages critical questions regarding the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s (“YCJA”) framework for imposing adult sentences on young offenders. The role of social context evidence is central when evaluating whether the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under section 72(1) of the YCJA. This appeal tests the boundaries of how youth courts weigh personal and systemic circumstances against the judgement and maturity displayed through the planning of criminal conduct.

Truth vs. Fairness in Sentencing: Lessons from R v Di Paola

Posted on 3 November 2025

In the decision of R v Di Paola, 2025 SCC 31 the Supreme Court of Canada examined how s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code should be interpreted during sentencing. The issue was whether a sentencing judge may consider, as aggravating factors, facts that could constitute a separate offence when that charge has already been laid but is no longer pending and has no rendered verdict. The Court’s decision clarifies both the scope of this provision and the Crown’s duty of fairness in presenting aggravating facts during sentencing.