appellate review

APPEAL WATCH: Old Leases, Same Law? ONCA Reaffirms “No Duty to Mitigate” in Aphria

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.

Kohli v Thom: Relocation, Family Violence, and the Limits of Income Imputation

In Kohli v Thom, the Court of Appeal for Ontario tackled two recurring flashpoints in modern family litigation: (1) whether a parent who has survived intimate-partner violence may relocate with a young child over the objection of the other parent; and (2) how a court should treat the survivor’s earning capacity when assessing child and spousal support.

APPEAL WATCH: Uneven Scrutiny and Twin Myth Safeguards – A Cry for Clarity 

Earlier in February of 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) granted leave to hear the appeal of British Columbia Court of Appeal (“BCCA”) case R v Kinamore, 2023 BCCA 337 [Kinamore]. The appeal concerns the uneven scrutiny of competing evidence and the application of the s. 276 of Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 […]

R v Abdullahi: The (In)Flexibility of the Appellate Review of Jury Instructions

In R v Abdullahi, 2023 SCC 19 [Abdullahi], Canada’s highest court made a 6-1 ruling that an Ontario trial judge erred in law by insufficiently instructing the jury of the legal definition of “criminal organization” per s. 467.1(1) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code] or [Criminal Code]. This decision is important for […]

Econolodge v Lombard: Custody as a Question of Fact

When you park your car at a hotel or restaurant, or leave it with a valet, you might not think twice about leaving the keys behind. But can a business that holds the keys to your car be considered to exercise "care and control" over it? 3091‑5177 Québec Inc (Éconolodge Aéroport) v Lombard General Insurance […]

Let’s Talk About Lacasse, Part 2: The Implications of Lacasse for the Sentencing Process

This is the second part of a two-part series on the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Lacasse. Part 1 discusses how the majority decision in Lacasse raises the standard for appellate review on sentencing decisions. Part 2 highlights two problematic aspects of Lacasse: the majority’s unconvincing reasoning in justifying a high standard of review and […]

Let’s Talk About Lacasse, Part 1: Raising the Standard for Appellate Review of Sentencing Decisions

This is the first part of a two-part series on the Supreme Court’s decision in R v Lacasse. Part 1 discusses how the majority decision in Lacasse raises the standard for appellate review on sentencing decisions. Part 2 highlights two problematic aspects of Lacasse: the majority’s unconvincing reasoning in justifying a high standard of review and […]

Minority Language Schools Don’t Have to Be Perfect: NWT v Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife

Minority language rights were at the centre of a recent case heard by the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal ("NWTCA"), with the court ruling that equality does not mean perfect schooling conditions. The court, in Northwest Territories (Attorney General) v Association des parents ayants droit de Yellowknife, 2015 NWTCA 2, set aside a lower court […]

New Test for When an Appellate Court Can Raise a New Issue: R v Mian

In R v Mian, [2014] 2 SCR 689 [Mian], the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC") attempted to strike a balance between two competing roles for appellate courts – of neutral arbiter and of justice-doer. In the process, the SCC set a new precedent for determining when an appellate court can raise a novel legal issue.