Posts

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.

Crown Concessions and Appellate Authority in R v Bouvette

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, […]

APPEAL WATCH: Tax Law Nuances and Absurd Consequences in Bank of Nova Scotia v Canada

Rarely does a tax law dispute reach the SCC, but when it does, it often provides a welcome opportunity for comprehensive statutory interpretation. Last month, the SCC heard an appeal from the unanimous FCA decision of Bank of Nova Scotia v Canada, 2024 FCA 192, leave to appeal granted (41643).

R v Pan and the Price of Fairness: An “Air of Reality” in A Complex Jury Trial

In R v Pan, the Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the scope of the “air of reality” test as it applies to included offences in jury trials. The majority has upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal’s verdict that Jennifer Pan should undergo a new trial regarding her initial first-degree murder charge, but maintained her conviction related to the attempted murder charge. Furthermore, the Court determined that the trial judge erred by failing to leave lesser included offences, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter, to the jury where there was a realistic possibility of conviction on those offences.

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Determine the Role of Purposive Analysis under Language Rights Legislation in Thibodeau

On August 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal’s judgment in St. John’s International Airport Authority v Thibodeau, 2024 FCA 197. This case presents an opportunity for the SCC to define the boundaries of a purposive analysis under the modern approach to statutory interpretation.