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?
Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador
marks the first case wherein the Supreme Court of Canada has heard a constitutional challenge borne out of an emergency measure adopted during the COVID-19 crisis. In Taylor, the SCC contemplated where an interprovincial mobility right is located within section 6 of the Charter.
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.
In Dunmore v Mehralian, the Supreme Court of Canada provided an answer to the question: what does it mean for a child to be habitually resident in a place?
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 I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that the standard of proof to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, which governs the imposition of adult sentences for youth, is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.
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.
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.
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.
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.