Does an accused have a right to the disclosure of an administratively expunged record of police misconduct? In Edmonton (Police Service) v McKee, the SCC clarified Canada's criminal disclosure framework, holding that police must transmit obviously relevant misconduct information to the Crown, which ultimately determines what must be disclosed to protect an accused's right to make full answer and defence.
In R. v. Wilson, the Court disagreed over a word that didn’t exist. In s. 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, those who call emergency services to save a person experiencing an overdose are immunized from being charged or convicted of drug possession. However, the provision does not include the word “arrest.” Despite this, the Court held that the provision also immunizes "good Samaritans" from arrest for drug possession using a purpose-laden modern approach to statutory interpretation.
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.
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.
This April, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal in Telus Communications Inc. v Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Applying the modern approach to statutory interpretation, the majority held that “transmission line,” as contemplated under sections 43 and 44 of the Telecommunications Act, does not capture 5G network antennas.
In R v Wolfe, 2024 SCC 34 [Wolfe], a majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that driving prohibitions cannot be imposed upon conviction for driving-related criminal negligence. The decision closes a years-long, multi-court debate over the statutory interpretation of new driving offence provisions in the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 [Code].
In R v Carignan [41186], the Supreme Court of Canada (“Supreme Court”) will — for the first time — interpret the scope of and relationship between ss 495(2) and 495(3) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. Section 495 governs police powers to arrest without warrant. Subsections (2) and (3) of this provision have […]
In Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that disgorgement orders, but not administrative fines, could survive discharge under provisions of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
In Deans Knight Income Corp. v Canada, 2023 SCC 16, (“Deans Knight”) the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC” or “the Court”) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, holding that the General Anti-Avoidance Rule (“GAAR”) under s. 245 of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th supp) (“ITA” or “the Act"), applied to a series of […]
Section 259(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada [Code] imposes a mandatory minimum; at sentencing, judges must apply a driving prohibition of at least twelve months for offenders convicted of impaired driving pursuant to this provision. Interpretation of the interaction between three provisions implies that pre-sentence driving prohibitions cannot be credited toward that minimum. The […]