TheCourt.ca

Siloing Evidence: Rioux and Errors of Law in Crown Appeals of Acquittals

cjchan — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 16:00:00 +0000

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.

Sentencing Maturity: SCC Speaks on the Youth Criminal Justice Act in R v I.M.

Veronika Nayir — Wed, 20 May 2026 16:00:00 +0000

In R v I.M., the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled that the standard of proof to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, which governs the imposition of adult sentences for youth, is the beyond a reasonable doubt standard.

Arrest Ex Nihilo: Wilson and the SCC’s Many Modern Approaches

cjchan — Wed, 06 May 2026 16:00:00 +0000

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.

Read more in cjchan's latest article: Arrest Ex Nihilo: Wilson and the SCC’s Many Modern Approaches

Emond v Trillium Mutual Insurance Co: When “Guaranteed” Coverage Isn’t Guaranteed

variam23 — Sun, 22 Mar 2026 13:10:09 +0000

In Emond v. Trillium Mutual Insurance Co., the Supreme Court of Canada considered the interaction between a guaranteed replacement cost endorsement and a compliance cost exclusion in a standard form insurance policy. The case required the SCC to determine whether insurers must cover the full cost of rebuilding in accordance with existing legal requirements, or whether such costs can be excluded despite language suggesting “guaranteed” coverage. In resolving this issue, the SCC clarified the proper approach to interpreting insurance endorsements, the scope of compliance cost exclusions, and the role of the nullification of coverage doctrine.

Beyond Neutrality: Kanyinda, s. 15(1), and the Limits of Facial Equality

shanayah — Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:21:32 +0000

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 Revisit Principles of Fundamental Justice and Charter Damages in Named Persons

nikeshms — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 16:00:00 +0000

On February 2, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal the Court of Appeal for British Columbia’s judgment in Named Persons v Canada (Attorney General), 2025 BCCA 197. This appeal provides the SCC with an opportunity to clarify the scope and application of s 7 principles of fundamental justice and s 24(1) damages under the Charter.

Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Co.: Can the common law be changed with prospective-only effect?

Jeremy Vyn — Thu, 12 Mar 2026 12:00:00 +0000

In February 2026, the SCC heard the appeal in Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Co. The question presented asks whether commercial landlords who reject a tenant’s lease repudiation are subject to the doctrine of mitigation. On its face the case seems to be of niche interest: significant for commercial property and contract lawyers, of course, but perhaps a dry topic for others. Far from it. As became apparent during oral arguments before the SCC, the appeal in Aphria puts in issue fundamental principles regarding the nature of common law decision-making.

APPEAL WATCH: Fair Election Outcomes and Unfair Election Processes (Anglin v Resler)

dorsafa — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 16:01:49 +0000

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.

When an Unsuccessful Seizure Interrupts Prescription: Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre

variam23 — Thu, 05 Mar 2026 17:00:00 +0000

In Mohawk Council of Kanesatake v Sylvestre, 2025 SCC 30 (“Kanesatake”) the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether an unsuccessful attempt to execute a judgment can interrupt an extinctive prescription under Quebec civil law. The case arose after creditors filed and served a notice of execution against the Mohawk Council of Kanesatake but ultimately seized […]

APPEAL WATCH: SCC to Decide on the Scope of Core Jurisdiction in Ontario Place Protectors

nikeshms — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 17:00:00 +0000

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.