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.
In Dorsey v Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court of Canada marks not only an important victory for inmates in federal correctional facilities but also a step forward in the application of access to justice arguments in administrative law. As the decision underscores, Dorsey will play an important role in shaping both habeas corpus case law and assessing the degree of access to justice in complex administrative regimes.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s holding in Pepa v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2025 SCC 21 reveals fault lines in the current approach to granting remedies on judicial review. The resulting uncertainty risks undermining the principle of predictability in the administrative state. In short, Pepa has significant consequences for administrative decision-makers and applicants seeking judicial review, particularly with respect to statutory interpretation.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R v JW addresses two intertwined controversies in Canadian sentencing law. First, it clarifies whether—and how—a sentencing judge may take account of the time an offender is likely to need to complete institutional programming when setting a custodial term. Second, it refines the meaning of “wrongful conduct” for the purpose of denying enhanced pre-sentence credit under s 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.
What standard of review applies when reviewing the vires of subordinate legislation? In the post-Vavilov era, this question has been the subject of conflicting appellate guidance. The Alberta Court of Appeal in this case followed the “hyper-deferential” standard that the Supreme Court (“SCC”) set in Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (Health and Long‑Term Care) […]
Questions on tax jurisdiction currently cause headaches for many taxpayers attempting to resolve a tax issue. It can be difficult to determine whether the Tax Court of Canada (“TCC”) or Federal Court (“FC”) is the correct jurisdiction for the appeal to be heard. This jurisdictional ambiguity has led to taxpayers concurrently commencing proceedings in both […]
In Ontario (Attorney General) v. Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 SCC 4 [IPC], the Supreme Court of Canada (“the SCC”) held that mandate letters issued by Premier Doug Ford to his ministers shortly after the formation of his government in 2018 are protected from disclosure. In doing so, the SCC overturned the Court of […]
In Mirza et al v the Law Society of Ontario 2023 ONSC 6727, ["Mirza"] the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (“SCJ” or the “Court”) struck a balance between the requirements of administrative procedural fairness and the integrity of the legal profession. The decision introduced some new checks and balances on unilateral actions on behalf of […]
In Ontario (Attorney General) v Ontario (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2024 SCC 4 [Ontario], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or the “Court”) held that the executive branch of the Ontario government was not required to disclose mandate letters sent to Cabinet Ministers because of society’s overriding interest in preserving Cabinet secrecy. The Court struck […]
In Yatar v TD Insurance Meloche Monnex, 2004 SCC 8 [Yatar], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) unanimously ruled that the existence of a statutory right of appeal does not preclude individuals from seeking judicial review for questions not covered by the appeal. Specifically, where the appeal right is restricted to questions of law, judicial […]