Posts

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 […]

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Decide on the Scope of Core Jurisdiction in Ontario Place Protectors

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s decision in Ontario Place Protectors v Ontario, 2025 ONCA 183. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to clarify whether the public trust doctrine exists in Canadian law and the scope of the superior courts’ core jurisdiction in the context of Crown immunity.

Could Quebec v Senneville Foreshadow the End of Reasonable Hypotheticals under Section 12 of the Charter?

Quebec v Senneville, 2025 SCC 33 is a publicly polarizing yet legally unsurprising decision of the SCC. Senneville affirms that the 1-year mandatory minimum sentences associated with the offences of accessing and possessing child pornography when prosecuted by indictment are contrary to section 12 of the Charter. However, only a narrow five-judge majority arrived at this conclusion, while four dissenting judges stopped short of a complete analysis.

When Reconciliation Meets Denunciation: Gladue and the Supreme Court’s Challenge in R v Cope

In early 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Cope, a split decision from the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal. The primary question of law on appeal concerns how sentencing judges should balance the reconciliatory imperatives of R v Gladue, and R v Ipeelee, with Parliament’s emphasis on denunciation and deterrence as primary considerations in cases involving violence against Indigenous women.