TheCourt.ca

Inmate Discipline: Correctional Institutions and the Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard Clarified in John Howard Society v Saskatchewan

Veronika Nayir — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 16:00:00 +0000

In John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada expanded the meaning of “imprisonment” under the “true penal consequence” test to include inmate disciplinary offences governed by Saskatchewan’s Correctional Services Regulations. The Court found that s. 68 of the Regulations, which governs the standard of proof for finding an inmate responsible for a disciplinary offence, was inconsistent with ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter, because it required proof on a balance of probabilities.

“Um You Should Know What That Means”: R v Fox and Solicitor-Client Privilege

cjchan — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 16:00:00 +0000

Law students typically learn about solicitor-client privilege as centred around the client. This privilege, so I was taught, ensures that clients can be frank with their lawyer; with the benefit of full disclosure from their client, lawyers can make the best case for their client. The facts in R v Fox turn this paradigm on its head: what if privilege is claimed not to protect the client, but the lawyer?

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

Veronika Nayir — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 16:00:00 +0000

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.

La Forest’s Corbett: Hussein and the Corbett Framework

cjchan — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 16:00:00 +0000

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.

Read more in cjchan's latest article: La Forest’s Corbett: Hussein and the Corbett Framework

Being At Home: The Children’s Law Reform Act and Jurisdiction in Dunmore v Mehralian

Veronika Nayir — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 16:00:00 +0000

In Dunmore v Mehralian, the Supreme Court of Canada provided an answer to the question: what does it mean for a child to be habitually resident in a place?

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.