Charter

Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia: How Should the Law Confront Intimate Partner Violence?

In Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, the Supreme Court of Canada reckoned with the largely-gendered harms of intimate partner violence. Justice Kasirer established a framework for developing new intentional torts, created a new tort of intimate partner violence to combat the distinct wrong of coercive control, and clarified the overlapping roles that tort and family law play for seeking justice and compensating victims. While the Court’s decision provided some needed clarity, it also raised as many questions as it answered, leaving unaddressed issues to be resolved in future decisions.

‘Excusez Moi?’: Language Rights in Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick v Canada (Prime Minister)

Language rights in Canada have a broad history. There is perhaps no province that embodies this commitment quite like New Brunswick, given its status as the only official bilingual province in Canada. In Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick v Canada (Prime Minister) 2026 SCC 22 [Nouveau-Brunswick], the Supreme Court (SCC) contends with applying Charter protected […]

R v Nguyen: Can Property Be Forfeited After a Stay of Proceedings?

A stay of criminal proceedings ends an accused’s prosecution, but does it also prevent the Crown from seeking forfeiture of property allegedly connected to criminal activity? In R v Nguyen, 2026 SCC 10 [Nguyen], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) considered whether the Crown could pursue forfeiture after criminal proceedings were stayed […]

Asking "What If?": Judicial Hypotheticals in Quebec (AG) v Denis, 2026 SCC 25

“What if?” is a question rooted in curiosity. Hypotheticals are a valuable tool for constitutional analysis that may allow courts to test the limits of legislation beyond the facts before them. However, balancing an individual’s Charter rights with statutory interpretation raises an important question: should there be parameters of a hypothetical scenario analyzed by the […]

Travel Bans in Taylor v Newfoundland and Labrador: Locating an Interprovincial Mobility Right

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.

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 Determine the Use of Compelled Accident Statements in Korduner

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal the decision in R v Korduner, a split decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal that examines the extent of use immunity for statutorily compelled statements. In particular, the SCC may wish to examine whether a statement given by a motorist who has an honest and reasonably held belief that they are statutorily compelled can be used as the reasonable grounds necessary to compel an evidentiary breath test pursuant to s.320.28 of the Criminal Code.

The Right to Know: SCC Strikes Down Election Spending Limits for Third Parties in Working Families

In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Working Families Coalition (Canada) Inc., 2025 SCC 5, [Working Families], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) held that the spending limits imposed by the Ontario government on third parties for political advertising infringed section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Texting Impersonations: SCC Weighs Digital Privacy in R v Campbell

In R v. Campbell, 2024 SCC 42 (“Campbell”), the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) weighed in on whether the police had lawful authority to use the cellphone of a drug dealer without a warrant to continue a text message conversation with an alleged drug distributor. In a 6-3 split, the SCC held that while there was a violation of section 8 of the Charter and Rights and Freedoms [“Charter”], the warrantless search of Mr. Campbell was justified under the exigent circumstances exception outlined in section 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”).

Appeal Watch: Can’t Talk to Your Head of State? SCC to rule on Unilingual Lieutenant Governors in New Brunswick in Acadian Society

In the Acadian Society of New Brunswick v The Right Honorable Prime Minister of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will decide whether the Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick must be bilingual [41398].  Overturning the decision by the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick (“NBQB”), the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick (“NBCA”) ruled in the Right Honourable Prime Minister of Canada et al v. La Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick 2024 NBCA 70 (“SANB” ) that the appointment did not contravene the Charter's language provisions.