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.
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 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.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s (“SCC”) decision in R v Larocque, 2025 SCC 36 [Larocque] addresses the scope of the evidentiary shortcuts available to the Crown in impaired driving prosecutions. Specifically, the SCC clarified what must be proven before the statutory presumption that breath test results are accurate can apply and whether the “target value” […]
On December 5, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in R v BF, restoring a conviction for attempted murder and rejecting the Court of Appeal for Ontario’s holding that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on a potential defence. In doing so, the SCC engaged with a fundamental question arising in the case: whether there was any air of reality to the theory that, rather than attempted murder, the accused was aiding a suicide attempt.
When the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal in R v Bharwani, it represented the first instance in over three decades that the highest court had the opportunity to interpret section 2 of the Criminal Code, since Parliament established the statutory definition for “unfit to stand trial” in 1991. Canadian mental disorder jurisprudence has come a long way in the previous three decades, but fitness—an issue central to the accused’s autonomy, trial fairness, and the “Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder” regime—remains largely governed by Taylor, an integral, but pre-Charter-evolution decision.
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 Supreme Court of Canada recently released its decision in R v Kinamore, clarifying that a complainant's sexual inactivity amounts to sexual history under s. 276 of the Criminal Code. Evidence of one’s sexual inactivity is therefore presumptively inadmissible unless first vetted through a voir dire, a pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility. The Court further clarified that this requirement applies regardless of which party introduces the evidence.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear Raed Jaser’s latest appeal in the high-profile terrorism prosecution arising from the 2013 VIA Rail plot. As is customary in leave to appeal decisions, no reasons were provided.
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.