Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (English Audio)

On December 6, 2021, S.A. was charged with assault and sexual assault. He elected to be tried by judge and jury. A trial date of April 17, 2023 was set but, on April 17, 2023, the trial could not commence because no judge was available. A trial date was set for February 12, 2024. Forestell J. held that delay of 6 to 10 months was unreasonable and breached s. 11(b) of the Charter. Notwithstanding that net delay was below the presumptive ceiling of 30 months set in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, she stayed the proceedings. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2025-05-16 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Right to tried in reasonable time — How should delay caused by judicial vacancy be treated under s. 11(b) of the Charter? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 2019, Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Salah both applied for transfer to a minimum security institution. At the time, Mr. Dorsey, a dangerous offender, was incarcerated at a medium security facility; Mr. Salah was sentenced to concurrent life sentences and is incarcerated at a different medium security facility. Mr. Dorsey's case management team, his Manager of Assessment and Intervention, and his Warden all agreed that he met the criteria for reclassification to minimum security but, because of his dangerous offender status, his transfer request had to be approved by the Regional Deputy Commissioner and then the Assistant Commissioner of Correctional Operations and Programs. In September 2019, the Regional Deputy Commissioner assessed Mr. Dorsey's public safety rating as moderate. His request was denied.Mr. Salah's case management team, his parole officer, and his Manager of Assessment and Intervention recommended reclassification and transfer to a minimum security facility, but, in October 2019, a new Manager of Assessment and Intervention and Intervention was assigned to his file. He assessed Mr. Salah as a moderate escape risk, so the Warden wrongly denied his transfer request.Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Salah each applied under the Habeas Corpus Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H-1, for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum with certiorari in aid. Although they did not apply under the Charter, they alleged that the denial of their transfer requests engaged ss. 7, 9, 10(c) and 12 of the Charter. On consent, the applications were joined for the purpose of determining a common threshold legal issue: whether Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Salah could resort to habeas corpus to challenge the denials of their applications for transfer to lower security prisons.The applications were dismissed on the grounds that habeas corpus was not available for denials of reclassification, which were not deprivations of residual liberty. After the application judge's decision, Mr. Dorsey was reclassified and transferred to a minimum security institution, but he continued his appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Argued Date 2025-05-13 Keywords Prerogative writs — Habeas corpus — Prisons — Deprivation of residual liberty — Security classification — Transfer — Denial of reclassification — Denial of transfer to lower security institution — Whether denial of reclassification and transfer to lower security institution is deprivation of residual liberty reviewable by way of habeas corpus. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent is a criminal defence lawyer whose client was the subject of a wiretap authorization under the Criminal Code. The authorization did not permit live monitoring of phone calls with a lawyer; such calls could be recorded, but a judge's order was required to access them. During the surveillance operation, the respondent called her client, which was automatically recorded. A civilian employee also listened to a portion of the call before disconnecting.A reviewing judge concluded that an initial portion of the telephone call was not subject to solicitor-client privilege and it was released to the Crown. The recording revealed the respondent informed her client that a third party had been arrested and that the police would likely be obtaining search warrants for places where the third party had been. The respondent was charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice by interfering in an ongoing police investigation, contrary to s. 139(2) of the Criminal Code.In a voir dire, the trial judge concluded that the respondent's rights under s. 8 of the Charter were not breached with respect to the civilian employee listening to her phone conversation. However, she also concluded that her rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter had been breached due to her inability to access the second, privileged portion of the recording. She ordered the entire recording excluded under s. 24(1) of the Charter. The Crown called no evidence and the respondent was acquitted.A majority of the Court of Appeal affirmed the acquittal and the trial judge's decision with respect to the breaches of the respondent's rights under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter. However, it also concluded that her rights under s. 8 had been breached, and it therefore would have excluded the evidence of the telephone call under s. 24(2) of the Charter rather than s. 24(1). The dissenting judge would have held that the respondent's ss. 7 and 11(d) rights were not breached. He agreed with the majority that there was a breach of her s. 8 rights, but he would have held that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2). He would have ordered a new trial. Argued Date 2025-05-20 Keywords Criminal Law — Charter of rights — Search and seizure (s. 8) — Full answer and defence (ss. 7 and 11(d) — Solicitor-client privilege — Wire-tap authorization — Interaction between solicitor-client privilege and an accused's lawyer's Charter rights — Wire-tap monitoring and recording of phone call between defence counsel and client — Whether the respondent's right to make full answer and defence was breached by not having access to the full recording of a phone call protected by solicitor-client privilege — Whether evidence obtained by s. 8 breaches should have been excluded. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda entered Quebec on or about October 9, 2018, via Roxham Road following a stay in the United States. Originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda made a claim for refugee protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, when she arrived. She has three children, who accompanied her and were very young at the time the application was filed. During the waiting period for the processing of her claim for refugee status, which was lengthy, she obtained a work permit allowing her to work in Quebec, and she approached three childcare facilities to find subsidized spaces for the children. However, she was denied access to subsidized childcare because such childcare is reserved for those whose refugee status is formally recognized by the federal authorities, which excludes those waiting for a decision in this regard. On May 31, 2019, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda filed an application for judicial review, which was amended on August 16, 2019. In the application, she challenged the legality, on the basis of an absence of valid statutory authorization, and the constitutional validity, on the basis of an infringement of certain rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter, of s. 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, CQLR, c. S 4.1.1, r. 1. Argued Date 2025-05-15 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Discrimination based on sex — Disproportionate impact of exclusion from subsidized childcare on women claiming refugee protection who have obtained work permit ? Whether s. 3 of Reduced Contribution Regulation infringes right to equality protected by s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter — If so, whether this infringement is justified under s. 1 of Canadian Charter — If this Court were to find that s. 3 of Reduced Contribution Regulation unjustifiably infringes s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter, what should appropriate remedy be? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) — Reduced Contribution Regulation, CQLR, c. S 4.1.1, r. 1, s. 3. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda entered Quebec on or about October 9, 2018, via Roxham Road following a stay in the United States. Originally from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda made a claim for refugee protection under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, when she arrived. She has three children, who accompanied her and were very young at the time the application was filed. During the waiting period for the processing of her claim for refugee status, which was lengthy, she obtained a work permit allowing her to work in Quebec, and she approached three childcare facilities to find subsidized spaces for the children. However, she was denied access to subsidized childcare because such childcare is reserved for those whose refugee status is formally recognized by the federal authorities, which excludes those waiting for a decision in this regard. On May 31, 2019, Ms. Cibuabua Kanyinda filed an application for judicial review, which was amended on August 16, 2019. In the application, she challenged the legality, on the basis of an absence of valid statutory authorization, and the constitutional validity, on the basis of an infringement of certain rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter, of s. 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, CQLR, c. S 4.1.1, r. 1. Argued Date 2025-05-14 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to equality — Discrimination based on sex — Disproportionate impact of exclusion from subsidized childcare on women claiming refugee protection who have obtained work permit ? Whether s. 3 of Reduced Contribution Regulation infringes right to equality protected by s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter — If so, whether this infringement is justified under s. 1 of Canadian Charter — If this Court were to find that s. 3 of Reduced Contribution Regulation unjustifiably infringes s. 15(1) of Canadian Charter, what should appropriate remedy be? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 15(1) — Reduced Contribution Regulation, CQLR, c. S 4.1.1, r. 1, s. 3. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Mr. Rousselle was arrested for impaired driving and administered a breathalyser test. Based on the results of the test, he was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood within two hours of ceasing to operate a motor vehicle. At trial, a Certificate of Qualified Technician from the officer who administered the breathalyzer test was admitted into evidence but the trial judge refused to admit two certificates of analysts who had certified the target value of the alcohol standard used by the qualified technician to conduct a required system calibration check of the breathalyzer device. The trial judge held the Certificate of Qualified Technician was not evidence of the target value of an alcohol standard and proof of the target value of an alcohol standard was a pre-condition to the Crown relying on the presumption in s. 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code that breathalyzer test results are conclusive proof of blood alcohol concentration. The trial judge acquitted Mr. Rousselle. A summary conviction appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside and a conviction was entered. The Court of appeal dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2025-04-24 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Breathalyser test results — Target value of alcohol standard — Whether Court of Appeal erred in interpretation of s. 320.31(1)(a) of Criminal Code as permitting Crown to prove alcohol standard was certified by an analyst through hearsay evidence of qualified technician? Notes (New Brunswick) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The complainant was at that time, a grade 7 student at an all-male boarding school in Alberta. The respondent was a teacher at the school. After a trial by judge and jury, the respondent was found guilty of sexual interference (count 1), invitation to sexual touching (count 2), and sexual assault (count 3) of a person under the age of 14 years. The offences occurred in 1993 and 1994. In view of the multiple incidents in this case, the sentencing judge was satisfied that it was appropriate to sentence the respondent on counts 1 and 2. Convictions were entered on counts 1 and 2. The charge of sexual assault was stayed in accordance with Kienapple. The respondent was sentenced to a six year prison term with the counts to be served concurrently. A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Wakeling and Feehan JJ.A.) allowed the respondent's sentence appeal reducing the sentence to 47 months. Crighton J.A., dissented and would have upheld the six year sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. Argued Date 2025-04-23 Keywords Criminal law – Sentencing – Did the Alberta Court of Appeal err in law in finding the sentencing judge's reasons for sentence to be insufficient? Do the principles articulated in R. v. Friesen apply to historic offences? Did the Alberta Court of Appeal err in interfering with the sentence imposed at trial? Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

After a trial by judge alone, the appellant, Buddy Ray Underwood, was convicted of robbery, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and murder. The trial judge acquitted the appellant of first degree murder but entered a conviction for the included offence of second degree murder instead. The respondent Crown appealed the acquittal and the appellant cross-appealed the conviction. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown's appeal, quashed the acquittal on first degree murder and substituted a conviction for first degree murder under ss. 231(2) and (5) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. First, the court agreed with the Crown that the trial judge erred in law in his analysis of constructive first degree murder by narrowing the causation analysis to focus exclusively on the direct medical cause of death. Second, the court concluded that the trial judge erred in law by misapprehending the time frame for assessing planning as well as the meaning of “planned” more generally. The appellant's cross-appeal, not at issue, was dismissed. Argued Date 2025-04-17 Keywords Criminal law – Appeals – Murder – First degree murder – Elements of offence – Constructive first degree murder – Planning and deliberation – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in convicting the appellant of first degree murder by concluding that his actions satisfied the elements of s. 231(2) and (5)(e) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 2020 the Chief Medical Officer of Health for Newfoundland and Labrador issued certain orders under the province's Public Health Protection and Promotion Act, in an effort to curtail the spread of COVID-19. These orders restricted travel, by limiting the circumstances in which non-residents were permitted to enter the province. Appellant Kimberley Taylor resides in Nova Scotia. Her mother, a resident of Newfoundland and Labrador, passed away suddenly in 2020. Ms. Taylor sought an exemption from the travel restrictions in order to attend her mother's funeral. Her request was denied. Ms. Taylor brought an application seeking a declaration that the travel restriction orders, and the provision of the Act under which they were issued, were beyond the legislative authority of the province and of no force and effect. Ms. Taylor also argued that the travel restrictions violated her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador dismissed the application. The application judge held that the legislation at issue was constitutional, but that the right to remain in Canada, protected by s. 6(1) of the Charter, included a right of mobility simpliciter within Canada. The decision to deny Ms. Taylor entry into the province infringed her s. 6(1) right to mobility, but the infringement was justified under s. 1 of the Charter. By the time the appeal and cross-appeal from that judgment came before the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland and Labrador, the travel restrictions were no longer in effect. The Court of Appeal declined to hear the appeal and cross-appeal on the basis that they were moot. Argued Date 2025-04-16 Keywords Charter of Rights – Mobility rights – Public health – COVID-19 – Chief medical officer of health issuing orders pursuant to provincial legislation to restrict travel into province during public health emergency – Appellant seeking to enter province to attend funeral – Appellant denied entry – Whether travel restriction order unconstitutional – Whether travel restriction order violates s. 6(1) of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Whether travel restriction order violates s. 6(2)(a) of Charter – Whether s. 6 violation justified by s. 1 of Charter – Whether Court of Appeal correct to reject appeal as moot – Public Health Protection and Promotion Act, S.N.L. 2018, c. P-37.3, s. 28(1)(h). Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant, Shamar Meredith, and a co-accused were charged with first degree murder. The victim was shot multiple times in the washroom area of a restaurant. Prior to the trial, the Crown brought a motion to have a video admitted as prior discreditable conduct evidence. The trial judge ruled that the video was admissible. After the written ruling was released and before the video was played for the jury, the appellant and the co-accused brought a motion to have the trial judge reconsider his decision on the prior discreditable conduct motion, which was dismissed. The appellant was eventually found guilty of second-degree murder by a jury. The appellant appealed his conviction. He raised, among other grounds of appeal, that the trial judge erred in admitting the video as evidence of prior discreditable conduct and/or failed to properly instruct the jury on the permissible use of such evidence. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal. The majority found that the trial judge applied the correct legal test in deciding to admit the video, and that his assessment of the probative value and prejudicial effect of the video was reasonable. Further, the majority found that trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the permitted and prohibited uses of the video. In dissent, van Rensburg J.A., would have allowed the appeal and directed a new trial on the charge of second-degree murder. She found that the trial judge erred in law (1) in concluding that the video was probative of whether the appellant and the co-accused were engaged in a joint enterprise to kill the victim, and admitting the video for this purpose; (2) in admitting the video for any purpose after the appellant and the co-accused offered to make certain admissions under s. 655 of the Criminal Code; and (3) in his instructions to the jury about the permitted and prohibited uses of the video, which were internally inconsistent, specifically instructed the jury to use the video for an improper purpose, and did not alleviate the significant prejudice to the appellant and the co-accused that resulted from the admission of this evidence. Argued Date 2025-03-24 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Prior discreditable conduct evidence— Charge to jury — Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of prior discreditable conduct as probative of whether the appellant and his co-accused were involved in a joint enterprise to kill the victim — Whether the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of prior discreditable conduct after the appellant and his co-accused proposed to make admissions covering and negating its probative value — Whether the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding the permitted and prohibited uses of the prior discreditable conduct and failed to alleviate the prejudice to the appellant and his co-accused. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant, P.B., was charged with sexual assault for having allegedly sexually assaulted the complainant on three occasions in the course of one night. At trial, the complainant was the only witness called. The appellant argued that the complainant's testimony was not sufficiently credible or reliable to prove the case against him beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular, he alleged that her evidence was unreliable because she claimed that her memory of the relevant events was based on “flashbacks”. The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence and found the appellant guilty. The appellant appealed his conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to give sufficient reasons for his decision, in that he failed to make concrete factual findings about which parts of the complainant's evidence he accepted and which he did not, and that the trial judge erred in evaluating the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, notably her “flashback” memory. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan dismissed the appeal. On the first issue, the majority found that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient. Having read the trial judge's reasons in a functional and contextual manner, the majority concluded that there is no difficulty discerning what the trial judge decided, from a factual standpoint, and why. The majority found the reasons also contained enough detail to permit appellate review for error. As for the second issue, the majority found that the trial judge's conclusion on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence is one that a reasonable view of the evidence supports. As such, the majority concluded that there was no proper basis to interfere. In dissent, Barrington-Foote J.A. would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered a new trial. He concluded that the trial reasons are insufficient to permit effective appellate review and that the trial judge's analysis on the reliability issues arising from the evidence was very brief and was not enough in the circumstances of this case. Argued Date 2025-03-21 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Credibility — Sufficiency of reasons — Whether the trial judge erred by failing to provide sufficient reasons — Whether the trial judge erred by failing to identify and apply the correct approach to the analysis of the reliability of evidence of recovered memories based on flashbacks. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 1978, the appellant, R.A., was babysitting the then five-year-old complainant at his home. In a statement made to the police, he explained that he asked the complainant to touch him and she did so. The appellant was charged with one count of indecently assaulting the complainant contrary to s. 149 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. Following a trial in the Provincial Court, the appellant was acquitted on the basis that there had been no “assault” under the Criminal Code. There had been no direct, intentional application of force to the complainant and no attempt or threat by an act or gesture to apply force to the complainant.On appeal, the Crown submitted that the trial judge erred by misinterpreting the elements of assault and holding that the sexual touching had to be physically initiated by the accused. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and set aside the acquittal. It concluded that the appellant touched the complainant in a manner constituting an assault and that any intentional contact with a child by an adult that is committed in circumstances of a sexual nature constitutes a direct and intentional application of force by the adult to the child's person, regardless of whose physical movement initiated the contact. Considering that the only issue was whether the appellant's conduct amounted to an assault and that the question had been answered in the affirmative, the court entered a conviction for indecent assault and remitted the matter to the Provincial Court for the appellant to be sentenced. Argued Date 2025-03-20 Keywords Criminal law — Indecent assault — Elements of offence — Intentional application of force — Did the Court of Appeal for British Columbia err in holding that in order to ground the offence of indecent assault in 1978, the element of assault did not require the intentional application of force by an accused? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 149. Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

During a roadside stop, the police found a handgun in the fanny pack belonging to the appellant, Mr. Amari Donawa. The handgun was sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences, but for reasons that were not explained, the police did not send the magazine or the ammunition.At trial, the expert testified that the handgun could not be fired easily without the magazine. The trial judge, Justice Edward of the Ontario Court of Justice, found that the handgun was not a firearm because making it operational, according to the expert, required special expertise, considerable time, and part not readily available. The Crown appealed Mr. Donawa's acquittals entered by the trial judge on the various firearm offences. The central issue in the appeal was whether the trial judge was correct in his finding that the handgun was not a firearm as defined in s. 2 of the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown's appeal and set aside the acquittals. It entered convictions on two counts (careless storage of a firearm and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number) and ordered a new trial on other counts. In its view, the trial judge made a number of errors in reaching his conclusion. He failed to consider whether the handgun, as found, was operable, based on the evidence. The failure to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence was an error of law. Argued Date 2025-03-26 Keywords Criminal Law —Firearm — Definition of firearm in Criminal Code — Evidence — Assessment — Does the definition of a “firearm” under s. 2 of the Criminal Code always dispense with proof of the availability of a functional magazine? — Did the Court of Appeal for Ontario err in finding that the trial judge had failed to consider all of the evidence in relation to the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 2 “firearm”. Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondents are various professionals who obtained judgments against the appellant in 2004, to which a ten-year prescriptive period applies under art. 2924 of the Civil Code of Québec. Certain actions interrupted prescription between 2005 and 2007, after which prescription started running again.A bailiff served a notice of execution on the appellant in 2016, which authorized the bailiff to seize the appellant's movable property. However, the bailiff concluded that the appellant's movable property was exempt from seizure pursuant to section 89 of the Indian Act. The bailiff later had discussions with the appellant's Grand Chief and was informed that there was no property outside of its land base. The bailiff did not prepare and file minutes of seizure. Subsequently, the appellant informed the respondents that it held a property outside of its land base but that it was exempt from seizure. The respondents registered a legal hypothec against that property.The appellant sought a declaration that the prescriptive period applicable to the judgment had expired before the respondents registered the hypothec. The trial judge concluded that prescription had been interrupted in November 2016 when the respondents served a notice of execution on the appellant. The actions of the respondents amounted to a judicial application that interrupted prescription per article 2892 C.C.Q. Although the seizure was unfruitful, it had not been dismissed or annulled by a court, in which case prescription would not have been interrupted, per article 2894 C.C.Q. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the trial judge's decision. Argued Date 2025-03-19 Keywords Prescription — Extinctive prescription — Interruption of prescription — Whether service of notice of execution interrupted prescription — Whether service of notice of execution amounts to unsuccessful seizure if there are no assets available to seize — Whether section 89 of the Indian Act applies so as to render appellant's movable property unseizable — Civil Code of Québec, arts. 2892, 2894 — Indian Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-5, s. 89. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Stephen and Claudette Emond lived in a home on the Ottawa River that was located in the catchment area of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (“MVCA”). They had purchased a standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy from Trillium Mutual Insurance Company. The Emonds' home was deemed a total loss as a result of flooding in April 2019. Although the insurer acknowledged coverage for the loss under the policy, the parties could not agree on what, if any, costs of replacement of the insureds' home were excluded from coverage under the policy. The Emonds claimed that the Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost (“GRC”) coverage endorsement fully guaranteed their rebuilding costs. Trillium acknowledged that the GRC coverage applied to replace the insureds' home, but took the position that the costs to be incurred to comply with the MVCA's regulation policies and other by-laws and regulations enacted after the original building of the home were excluded from coverage by an exclusion in the policy. The application judge accepted the Emonds' position that the GRC coverage was intended to guarantee the costs of rebuilding their home, without any limitation of coverage resulting from the operation of any rule, regulation, by-law, or ordinance. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal and concluded that the exclusion applied to exclude coverage for increased costs to comply with any law, including by-laws and regulations such as the MVCA regulation policies. Argued Date 2025-03-18 Keywords Insurance — Homeowner's insurance — Home deemed total loss as a result of flooding — Home insured through standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy including endorsement for guaranteed rebuilding cost — Policy containing exclusion for increased costs of replacement due to operation of any law regulating construction of buildings — Insurer disputing homeowners' claim for coverage for costs of complying with regulatory policies to rebuild home — Application judge concluding coverage included and Court of Appeal concluding coverage excluded — What is the correct interpretation of the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement? — Whether an exclusion clause in the basic policy can be used to deny expanded coverage granted by the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Judge Gagnon of the Court of Québec acquitted the appellant, Frédéric Rioux, of the offence of sexual assault committed between August 1 and 2, 2019, in Bonsecours. Although the Crown had laid only one charge for a sexual assault that occurred in Bonsecours, the Crown's evidence related to two instances of sexual intercourse, one in Magog and the other in Bonsecours. With regard to the first sexual act, which took place in a park in Magog, the judge found that the accused's evidence was probative of the complainant's consent and had not been contradicted by the complainant, who had no memory of the incident. The actus reus was therefore not established beyond a reasonable doubt. As for the second instance of sexual intercourse, which occurred at the accused's house in Bonsecours, the judge found that the Crown had met its burden but that Mr. Rioux's version raised a doubt concerning his honest but mistaken belief in the complainant's consent.For the reasons given by Bachand J.A. and concurred in by Hamilton J.A., the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, but only with respect to Mr. Rioux's criminal liability for the events that took place in the park in Magog on the evening of August 1, 2019, since the Crown had decided not to challenge the trial judge's conclusion that Mr. Rioux had no criminally liability for the events in Bonsecours. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had made errors of law in analyzing the issue of the complainant's capacity to consent to the sexual acts that had taken place in Magog. Those errors of law on the issue of the consensual nature of the sexual acts made it necessary to hold a new trial. Mainville J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal, as he was of the view that the trial judge had considered all the circumstantial evidence but had found that Mr. Rioux could nevertheless be acquitted based on the probative value of his testimony. Mainville J.A. expressed serious reservations about the validity of the Crown's appeal with regard to events that were not part of the charge, given that the accused had been acquitted of the offence directly covered by the indictment. He added that it was not appropriate to order a new trial when Mr. Rioux would be tried again for an offence of which he had been finally acquitted. Argued Date 2025-01-22 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Assessment — Sexual assault — Capacity to consent — Absence of direct evidence from complainant — Consideration of all evidence — Appeal — Powers of Court of Appeal — Charge — Order limiting scope of new trial — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in holding that trial judge had failed to consider all evidence on ultimate issue of guilt or innocence — If trial judge made error of law, whether majority erred in law in failing to address question of whether respondent had shown with reasonable degree of certainty that verdict would not necessarily have been same without that error in light of trial judge's conclusion that he believed appellant. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant, Roger Patrick Bilodeau, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of manslaughter for the shooting deaths of two men. He was found liable as a party under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, for having formed an intention to carry out an unlawful purpose common with his son, who shot the deceased. He appealed his convictions, arguing that the jury was improperly instructed, including regarding the common unlawful purpose. The majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It concluded that many errors identified benefited the appellant, often by imposing on the Crown an unduly onerous burden. No substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred: s. 686(1)(b)(iii) should be applied. Pentelechuck J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. In her view, there were additional legal errors in the charge not identified by the majority, one or more of which were not harmless, precluding a route under s. 686(1)(b)(iii). There was a real risk that the common unlawful purpose alleged by the Crown merged into the secondary offence of murder. The dissenting judge was not convinced that the evidence was so overwhelming that, notwithstanding the serious nature of the error, a reasonable and properly instructed jury would inevitably have convicted. Argued Date 2025-02-19 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Party liability — Common unlawful purpose — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining that the instruction to the jury with regard to the appellant's alleged liability as a party, pursuant to s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, contained no prejudicial error — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 21(2). Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

After a jury trial before Blanchard J. of the Superior Court, the appellant, Maxime Chicoine-Joubert, was convicted of one count of second degree murder and one count of assault with a weapon. On appeal, Mr. Chicoine-Joubert argued that the judge had erred in his instructions regarding manslaughter and in his answer to questions from the jury by failing to mention the necessary mens rea.The Quebec Court of Appeal, for the reasons of Vauclair J.A., Hamilton J.A. concurring, dismissed Mr. Chicoine-Joubert's appeal. It found that the instructions to the jury were correct in the context of the case. Since Mr. Chicoine-Joubert conceded his guilt for the manslaughter verdict, the question from the jury on that offence did not require that the judge address it. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the grounds that the trial judge had not adequately answered the questions from the jury and that there was a reasonable possibility that the jurors had misunderstood the requisite mens rea for second degree murder. Although the dissenting judge agreed with the majority that the initial instructions contained no error warranting the court's intervention, he found that the trial judge had not fulfilled his obligation to answer questions from the jury clearly, correctly and comprehensively. He did not instruct the jurors on manslaughter or provide them with an example. Argued Date 2025-02-20 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Questions from jury — Manslaughter — Whether trial judge erred in his instructions and in his answer to questions from jury regarding offence of manslaughter, offence that appellant does not acknowledge having committed — Whether majority of Court of Appeal made reviewable error in declining to order new trial. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent was found not guilty of sexual assault following a jury trial. Consent was the central issue. The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal, submitting that the trial judge erred in law by restricting Crown counsel's examination of the complainant on her prior statements (text messages that were exchanged between the complainant and the respondent after the event) and erred in law in rulings related to the admission of evidence about the complainant's prior sexual history. A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal. It concluded that although the trial judge placed restrictions on the text messages exhibit during direct examination of the complainant in excess of what was necessary to prevent the jury from improperly using the text messages, his interventions were within the reasonable exercise of his trial management power. The majority also concluded the trial judge made no error in finding that the prior sexual history evidence was capable of being admissible. There was no error regarding the judge's finding of an inconsistency between the complainant's evidence on cross-examination and her prior statement to the police. The trial judge did not err in admitting the prior sexual history evidence and in refusing to allow Crown counsel to question the complainant about the inconsistency on re-examination. Knickle J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. She concluded that the trial judge erred in his treatment of the text messages conversation evidence and therefore improperly restricted the Crown's direct examination of the complainant. The trial judge also erred in admitting evidence of the complainant's previous sexual history for the purpose of cross-examining her on alleged inconsistencies, because the complainant's testimony was not inconsistent with what she had stated to police and she had not put her previous sexual history with the respondent in issue. The trial judge also erred by denying Crown counsel's re-examination of the complainant. These errors had a material bearing on the verdict of acquittal rendered by the jury. Argued Date 2025-01-21 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant's prior sexual history — Text messages — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the prior sexual history evidence of the complainant was properly admitted by (i) deferring to the trial judge's finding that there was an inconsistency; (ii) finding that the evidence met the threshold of legitimate relevance; and (iii) finding that the trial judge properly exercised his discretion by prohibiting the Crown from asking the complainant questions on redirect about the prior sexual history — Whether the majority erred in holding that the trial judge's restrictive treatment of text messages was a reasonable exercise of his trial management powers — Whether the errors had a material bearing on the acquittal and the test in R. v. Graveline, 2006 SCC 16, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 609, has been met — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 276. Notes (Newfoundland & Labrador) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

On March 20, 2019, at approximately 11:00 p.m., police officers received a tip that Mr. Singer was driving a truck and the caller believed that he was intoxicated. More than an hour later, an officer observed a vehicle matching the vehicle description given by the caller. The truck was parked on a residential driveway. Its lights were on and its ignition was running. Officers could not see anyone in the vehicle from the road. They entered the driveway and approached the vehicle. They observed a single occupant sleeping in the driver's seat. They knocked on the driver's window and got no response. They opened the front doors and immediately smelled a strong odour of alcohol. The officers reached into the vehicle and shook Mr. Singer awake. Mr. Singer had red, bloodshot eyes and there was a strong odour of alcohol coming from his breath. Cst. Lapointe detained Mr. Singer and administered a roadside breath sample. Mr. Singer failed the roadside breath test. He was arrested for care or control of a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol level. At a police station, he declined to provide a breath sample. Mr. Singer was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand for a breath sample made by a peace officer. At trial, Mr. Singer argued that his s. 8 Charter rights were breached and the evidence should be excluded. The trial judge dismissed the Charter application and convicted Mr. Singer of failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample. The Court of Appeal held that the police officers' conduct constituted a search in breach of s. 8 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal, excluded the evidence and entered an acquittal. Argued Date 2025-02-18 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Criminal law — Exclusion of evidence — Implied license to knock — Does the driver of a vehicle parked in the driveway of a dwelling house have a privacy interest protected by s. 8 of the Charter such that police officers responding to a complaint of impaired driving are prohibited from approaching the vehicle, communicating with the driver and observing signs of impairment — If the police conducted a search within the meaning of s. 8 of the Charter, was that search unreasonable — If the police conducted an unreasonable search, should the evidence obtained from the search be excluded? Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The parties were married in 1999 in India. During their sixteen years of marriage, they had two children. The trial judge found that Mr. Ahluwalia was abusive during the marriage. The trial judge accepted Ms. Ahluwalia's evidence that the parties' relationship was characterized by a pattern of emotional and physical abuse and financial control. Ms. Ahluwalia testified to three specific incidents of physical violence: in 2000, 2008, and 2013. Ms. Ahluwalia brought an action for statutory relief and also claimed damages for Mr. Ahluwalia's conduct during the marriage. Justice Mandhane, the trial judge, awarded Ms. Ahluwalia $100,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages for the new tort of family violence. She also awarded an additional $50,000 in punitive damages for a total of $150,000 in damages. Benotto J.A., for the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal in part and reduced the damage award by $50,000. The Court of Appeal declined to recognize the new torts of domestic violence or coercive control as defined in this case. Argued Date 2025-02-12 Keywords Family law – Tort of family violence – Was Justice Mandhane correct in recognizing a tort of family violence? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The parties were married in 1999 in India. During their sixteen years of marriage, they had two children. The trial judge found that Mr. Ahluwalia was abusive during the marriage. The trial judge accepted Ms. Ahluwalia's evidence that the parties' relationship was characterized by a pattern of emotional and physical abuse and financial control. Ms. Ahluwalia testified to three specific incidents of physical violence: in 2000, 2008, and 2013. Ms. Ahluwalia brought an action for statutory relief and also claimed damages for Mr. Ahluwalia's conduct during the marriage. Justice Mandhane, the trial judge, awarded Ms. Ahluwalia $100,000 in compensatory and aggravated damages for the new tort of family violence. She also awarded an additional $50,000 in punitive damages for a total of $150,000 in damages. Benotto J.A., for the Court of Appeal, allowed the appeal in part and reduced the damage award by $50,000. The Court of Appeal declined to recognize the new torts of domestic violence or coercive control as defined in this case. Argued Date 2025-02-11 Keywords Family law – Tort of family violence – Was Justice Mandhane correct in recognizing a tort of family violence? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In the 1990s, Promotion M.G. Larochelle inc. (Promotion M.G.) was involved in real estate development in Ville de Sainte-Julie (City), the applicant/cross respondent. In December 2000, the total area of Promotion M.G.'s real estate projects was 760,926.3 m2. The municipal by law on parks and playgrounds required 76,092.63 m2, that is, 10% of that area, to be transferred free of charge to the City. However, Promotion M.G. had already transferred 3,898.27 m2 in excess to the City. In February 2001, the City and Promotion M.G. signed an agreement (Agreement) regarding land transfers for the purposes of parks or playgrounds. The Agreement included an undertaking by Promotion M.G. to transfer land with an area of 45,615 m2 to the City, 50% of that area (22,807.5 m2) being applicable, along with the 3,898.27 m2 already transferred in excess, to the creation of a total [TRANSLATION] “area bank” of 26,705.78 m2. The creation of that bank allowed the City to avoid having to compensate Promotion M.G. in money for the excess area transferred. In fact, the parties expressly agreed that the bank was to be applied in compensation for park fees to be paid to the City in the context of future real estate development by Promotion M.G. or companies related to it in the City. While at the time Promotion M.G. did not have any land to develop in the City, a company related to it, the respondent/cross applicant, Les Investissements Laroda inc. (Laroda), owned lots located in an agricultural zone that it intended to develop for real estate purposes. On two occasions, that is, in 2004 and 2008, the City filed an application with the Commission de protection du territoire agricole du Québec (CPTAQ) to have part of the sector (called “Du Moulin”) where Lorada's lots were located excluded from the agricultural zone, and each time, the application was rejected. The Administrative Tribunal of Québec dismissed the appeal from CPTAQ's last decision in 2011. In December 2015, Laroda, which, since 2010, had had all the rights, titles and interest that belonged to Promotion M.G., sent a letter, through its representative, Éric Larochelle, to the City's mayor requesting that she make it a monetary offer that corresponded to the present value of the area included in the bank provided for in the Agreement. After talks broke down, Laroda filed an originating application against the City asking the court to fix a term for the Agreement and to order the City to pay damages. The Superior Court dismissed the originating application and the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. Argued Date 2025-02-17 Keywords Contract — Transaction — Novation — Modalities of obligation — Compensatory prestation — Prescription of right of action — Insofar as Agreement P 5 dated February 19, 2001, constitutes transaction, whether Court of Appeal erred in not finding it to have novatory if not declaratory nature that modified pre existing obligations of parties — Whether Court of Appeal could order restitution of prestations where no situation set out in art. 1699 of Civil Code of Québec was alleged or proven and where parties had signed notarial acts by which Les Investissements Laroda transferred surplus parks free of charge — Whether Court of Appeal, in interpreting Agreement P-5, erred in characterizing City's obligation to reimburse as being obligation with term; if not, whether it could simultaneously apply arts. 1510 and 1512 of Civil Code of Québec with direct effect on prescriptive period — Whether Court of Appeal erred in failing to apply performance by equivalence regime in context of this case after having previously recognized that City's obligation had become exigible — Civil Code of Québec, arts. 1497, 1508, 1510, 1512, 1660, 1699, 1700, 2631, 2925. Notes (Quebec) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent, Enrico Di-Paola, is a construction contractor committed for trial on four charges related to a corruption and fraud matter involving an official with whom he was doing business and with whom he had a friendship. The day before his trial, Mr. Di-Paola entered into a negotiated agreement with the prosecutor to plead guilty to a charge of having conferred a benefit on an official while having dealings with the government and without the written consent of the official's superior (s. 121(1)(b)), and the prosecutor dropped the more serious charges. The prosecutor amended the indictment in accordance with the agreement. Following the guilty plea, the Superior Court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence of imprisonment on Mr. Di-Paola. The judge accepted as one of the aggravating factors the fact that Mr. Di-Paola had conferred advantages and benefits on the official in consideration of the awarding of lucrative contracts by the official. The Court of Appeal reduced the length of the conditional sentence of imprisonment imposed on Mr. Di-Paola from 15 months to 6 months, finding that the trial judge had erred in principle in accepting aggravating facts associated with another charge that had previously been laid and that had not been carried over in accordance with the agreement entered into between the parties. Argued Date 2025-02-13 Keywords Criminal law — Sentencing — Consideration of facts forming part of circumstances of offence — Agreement entered into by prosecutor and accused regarding guilty plea — Whether evidence of facts that demonstrate offence with which offender was initially charged, but which is no longer pending and for which there was no verdict, is admissible as aggravating factor for sentencing pursuant to s. 725(1)(c) of Criminal Code — What are duties of fairness of prosecutor who intends to use s. 725(1)(c) of Criminal Code to prove such offence as aggravating factor in sentencing following guilty plea? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 725(1)(c). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

After friends spent a night drinking heavily in a basement apartment, Mr. Boucher was fatally stabbed multiple times in a bedroom. No one witnessed the stabbing. Mr. Hussein was charged with second degree murder and tried before a jury. He testified at trial. Defence counsel brought an application to prevent or restrict the Crown from cross-examining Mr. Hussein on his extensive criminal record. The trial judge dismissed the application. In cross-examination of Mr. Hussein, Crown counsel raised his criminal record. The trial judge instructed the jury on the use it could make of Mr. Hussein's criminal record. The jury convicted Mr. Hussein of second degree murder. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the conviction. Argued Date 2025-01-23 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Prior convictions — Should the test for admitting a testifying accused's criminal record into evidence at trial be modified and if so, what is the appropriate test — Whether the trial judge erred in failing to exclude the accused's criminal record? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellants, the Attorney General of Quebec and His Majesty the King, obtained leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the declaration of unconstitutionality made by the Quebec Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 with respect to the mandatory minimum sentences of 12 months' imprisonment provided for in s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code. According to the majority of the Court of Appeal, these provisions violate s. 12 of the Canadian Charter, namely, the guarantee provided against cruel and unusual punishment, and cannot be justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter. That declaration of unconstitutionality resulted from appeals filed notably in respect of two decisions rendered by the Court of Québec regarding the sentences to be imposed on the respondents, Mr. Naud and Mr. Senneville. Mr. Naud was convicted of two counts relating to possession and distribution of child pornography. Sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for possession and 11 months' imprisonment for distribution pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (3) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, along with various consequential orders. Mr. Senneville was convicted of two counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography. Sentences of 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for possession and 90 days' imprisonment to be served intermittently for accessing child pornography pursuant to s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a) of the Criminal Code were imposed on him, also along with various consequential orders. Argued Date 2025-01-20 Keywords Charter of Rights — Cruel and unusual treatment or punishment — One-year minimum sentences — Child pornography — Counts relating to possessing and accessing child pornography — Whether s. 163.1(4)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether s. 163.1(4.1)(a) of Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, violates s. 12 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If it does, whether it is reasonable limit prescribed by law that can be demonstrably justified in free and democratic society under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 12 and 1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 163.1(4)(a) and (4.1)(a). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Following their trial, the appellants, Mikhail Kloubakov and Hicham Moustaine, were convicted of obtaining a material benefit from sexual services (s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code) and of procuring, as parties (s. 286.3(1) of the Criminal Code). However, after entering the convictions, the trial judge determined that the provisions in question were overbroad and that they deprived certain sex workers of the right to security without being in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, thereby infringing s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. She held that the infringements were not justified under s. 1 of the Charter, and she accordingly declared ss. 286.2(1), (4) and (5) and 286.3(1) unconstitutional and suspended the declaration of invalidity for 30 days. She entered a stay of proceedings as a remedy. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the declarations of invalidity concerning ss. 286.2 and 286.3 and the stay of proceedings, and entered convictions against Mr. Kloubakov and Mr. Moustaine. It referred the matter back to the Court of King's Bench for sentencing. In its view, the impugned provisions did not infringe s. 7, and a s. 1 analysis was therefore unnecessary. Argued Date 2024-11-12 Keywords Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Right to security of person — Criminal law — Commodification of sexual activities — Accused challenging constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions concerning offence of obtaining material benefit from sexual services and offence of procuring — Whether Court of Appeal erred in determining purpose of legislation and of relevant provisions — Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding that provisions were not overbroad in relation to their purpose, contrary to s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Whether it is possible to displace presumption that purposes articulated by Parliament are valid — If it is possible, whether presumption is displaced in this case — Whether ss. 286.2(1), (4) and (5) and 286.3(1) of Criminal Code infringe rights guaranteed in s. 7 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If so, whether these infringements can be justified under s. 1 of Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — If infringements are not justified under s. 1, what remedies are most appropriate in this case — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 1, 7 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 286.2, 286.3. Notes (Alberta) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellants are owners of a residential property in the City of Toronto. They sought an order for adverse possession of a parcel of City parkland that their predecessors in title had fenced off with a chain link fence and enclosed into their backyard. The City acknowledged that the appellants' evidence satisfied the traditional test for adverse possession. The issue was whether the disputed land was nevertheless immune to a claim for adverse possession by virtue of being City land. The application judge found that a private landowner could not acquire title by encroaching on public land and fencing off portions for their private use. This decision was upheld on appeal. Argued Date 2025-01-16 Keywords Courts — Jurisdiction — Property — Real property — Adverse possession — Home owner fencing off part of municipal parkland for their own use and subsequent owners seeking to acquire that land by way of a claim for adverse possession — Does the statutory scheme or existing case law support the Court of Appeal's decision to exempt municipal parkland from the real property limitations legislation? — Did the Court of Appeal have the jurisdiction to use the common law to provide that municipal parkland is exempt or immune from the real property limitations legislation? — If so, was it appropriate for the Court of Appeal to amend the law of adverse possession to find that municipal parkland is exempt or immune from claims of adverse possession? — Real Property Limitations Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. L.15, ss. 4, 15, 16. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondent, Dov Markowich, is a shareholder of the appellant, Lundin Mining Corporation (“Lundin”). He sought leave under s. 138.8 of Ontario's Securities Act, to bring a statutory cause of action against Lundin and its officers and directors for Lundin's alleged failure to make timely disclosure of pit wall instability and a subsequent rockslide at a mine in Chile (“events”). He also sought to certify the action as a class action under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6, advancing claims on behalf of certain shareholders of Lundin. Lundin did not publicly disclose the events at the time they occurred on October 25 and October 31, 2017, respectively. It advised investors about them approximately a month later, on November 29, in its regularly scheduled update. The next day, the price of Lundin's securities fell 16 per cent on the TSX. The issue at the heart of the appeal involves the competing interpretations of whether there is a reasonable possibility that Mr. Markowich's action will be resolved in his favour at trial based on his claim that Lundin's lack of disclosure was contrary to its obligations to disclose forthwith a “material change” in its “business, operations or capital”. Argued Date 2025-01-15 Keywords Securities — Civil procedure — Commencement of proceedings — Statutory cause of action for failure to make timely disclosure — Leave to proceed — Mining company disclosing occurrence of pit wall instability and subsequent rockslide in periodic disclosure rather than at time of occurrence — Shareholder seeking to institute class action for company's failure to make timely disclosure — Commencement of action requiring leave of the court based on whether there is reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved in favour of the plaintiff at trial — Motion judge dismissing motion for leave — Court of Appeal allowing appeal and granting motion for leave — What is a “material change” for the purpose of Canadian securities law? — Should the leave requirement modify or lessen the burden to show a “material change”? — Securities Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.5, ss. 138.3(4) and 138.8. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Section 4.1(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, provides that no person who seeks emergency medical or law enforcement assistance because that person, or another person, is suffering from a medical emergency is to be charged or convicted of the offence of simple possession of a controlled substance if the evidence in support of that offence was obtained or discovered as a result of that person having sought assistance or having remained at the scene of the medical emergency. Mr. Wilson was with three other people when one overdosed on fentanyl and one of them called 911. Police responding to the 911 call arrested Mr. Wilson for simple possession of a controlled substance at the scene of the overdose. Police conducted a search of the group's truck and, in a green backpack, discovered modified handguns, parts for firearms, ammunition and identification papers. Later at a police station, Mr. Wilson admitted he was the owner of the green backpack, the guns and the ammunition. He admitted that the identification papers did not belong to him. Mr. Wilson was charged with possession of identity documents, fraudulent impersonation and a number of firearms offences. He was not charged with possession of a controlled substance. The trial judge dismissed an application for a declaration that the evidence should excluded for breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and admitted the evidence. Mr. Wilson was convicted of firearms offences. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and entered acquittals on all counts. Argued Date 2025-01-14 Keywords Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Search and seizure — Arbitrary detention — Good Samaritan law — Police responding to 911 call reporting an overdose and arresting accused for simple possession of a controlled substance at the scene of the overdose — Police conducting search incident to arrest and discovering evidence of firearms offences and false identity offences — Whether police had authority to arrest accused for simple possession of a controlled substance — Whether arrest and search were unlawful and in violation of Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) The appellant, an Indigenous man with significant cognitive difficulties, repeatedly sexually assaulted a worker at the group home where he resided. He remained in custody pending trial, including a period of detention in a psychiatric facility while temporarily unfit to stand trial. After resiling from three agreements to plead guilty, the appellant did so the fourth time. From charge to conviction, nearly four years elapsed. The sentencing judge imposed a nine-year custodial term. This term was lengthier than the one requested by the appellant, in part because his cognitive difficulties increase the amount of time required for rehabilitative programming. The sentencing judge considered the appellant's repeated abandonment of agreements to plead guilty to be wrongful conduct and disallowed enhanced pre-sentence custodial credit for part of the appellant's detention. The sentencing judge also relied on the relatively favourable conditions of detention in the psychiatric facility as a basis to deny enhanced credit. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in part, due to an error in calculating the number of days the appellant spent in custody, but otherwise dismissed the appeal. It found that the length of time required to complete rehabilitative programming was one of multiple factors that the sentencing judge considered, and that she was entitled to do so. Furthermore, there was an evidentiary basis to conclude that the appellant's repeated abandonment of guilty pleas was wrongful conduct, and that the appellant's conditions of detention did not warrant enhanced credit for his entire period of pre-sentence custody. Argued Date 2024-12-03 Keywords Criminal law — Sentencing — Whether anticipated time to complete rehabilitative programming may be considered when determining length of custodial sentence outside of dangerous offender regime — Whether delay caused by offender is wrongful conduct justifying denial of enhanced custodial credit — Whether offenders detained in mental health facilities prior to sentencing entitled to enhanced credit for those periods Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(SEALING ORDER) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC) The appellant, Tammy Marion Bouvette, was babysitting a 19-month old baby who died while having a bath. An autopsy was conducted by Dr. Evan Matshes. The appellant was charged with second degree murder. The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death. The British Columbia Court of Appeal concluded that a body of relevant information was within the possession of the Crown and/or police and was not disclosed to the appellant's counsel. Most significantly, the undisclosed evidence pertained to the reliability of the evidence and opinions of Dr. Matshes. The Court of Appeal held that the conviction must be set aside as the product of a miscarriage of justice, as the evidence and circumstances establish a reasonable possibility that the appellant would not have pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death had full disclosure been made. The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, allowed the appeal, vacated the guilty plea, set aside the conviction and entered a stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2024-11-14 Keywords Criminal law — Appeals — Powers of the Court of Appeal — Setting aside guilty plea when there has been a miscarriage of justice — Scope of appellate courts' remedial discretion under s. 686(2) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, to enter an acquittal — Did the Court of Appeal err in finding that the entirety of the record as amplified on appeal admits the reasonable possibility of a conviction on a theoretical retrial? — If there remains a reasonable possibility of a conviction on a retrial, does s. 686(2)(a) nevertheless permit a court of appeal to enter an acquittal and, if so, in what circumstances? Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Sealing order) (Certain information not available to the public) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellant, Opsis Airport Services Inc., is a federal company that operates the emergency call dispatch centre at Pierre Elliot Trudeau International Airport. The respondent the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions charged Opsis with operating an enterprise that carried on private security activities without holding an agency licence of the appropriate class, contrary to ss. 4 and 114 of the Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5 (“PSA”). Opsis admitted that, without holding an agency licence, it was carrying on activities related to electronic security systems, which are normally subject to the PSA. However, it challenged the PSA's constitutional applicability. The Court of Québec held that the PSA applied to Opsis and therefore accepted the guilty pleas, convicted Opsis of the offences as charged and imposed fines on it. The court found that the PSA did not intrude on the core of a federal head of power because the PSA had no impact or only a very small impact on Opsis's operations. The Superior Court allowed Opsis's appeal, declared the PSA inapplicable to Opsis's activities related to the operation of the emergency call centre pursuant to the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity, quashed the convictions and acquitted Opsis of the offences charged. The judge held that the PSA intruded on the core of the federal aeronautics power, which included airport security, and that the intrusion constituted an impairment of the core of the federal power. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the Superior Court's judgment and affirmed the convictions entered by the Court of Québec. Although Opsis's activities fell within the core of Parliament's aeronautics power, the application of the PSA did not cause any actual impairment. A purely speculative or hypothetical impairment did not suffice. Ruel J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Superior Court's judgment. He was of the view that if the PSA were applicable to Opsis's operations, the provisions would impair the core of federal jurisdiction over aeronautics safety and security. Argued Date 2024-12-11 Keywords Constitutional law — Interjurisdictional immunity — Impairment — Evidence — Federal paramountcy — Conflict of purposes — Provincial offences — Licences — Application of provincial statute to airport security activities — Whether Private Security Act must be declared constitutionally inapplicable to appellant pursuant to doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity on ground that it impairs Parliament's exclusive jurisdiction over aeronautics — Whether Private Security Act must be declared constitutionally inoperative in relation to appellant pursuant to doctrine of federal paramountcy on ground that there is conflict of purposes between it and federal legislative scheme relating to aeronautics — Whether Private Security Act and associated regulations apply to appellant's airport security activities, which are essentially public and governmental in nature — Private Security Act, CQLR, c. S-3.5. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Mr. Kinamore, when he was 22-years old, and the complainant, when she was 16-years old, met at a motorcycle shop and they exchanged messages for a few months. They met for dinner and a movie at Mr. Kinmore's apartment. Afterwards, Mr. Kinamore was charged with sexual assault. Both the complainant and Mr. Kinamore testified at trial. The complainant described a sexual assault. Mr. Kinamore described a consensual sexual encounter. Both the Crown and the defence tendered evidence of prior messages between the complainant and Mr. Kinamore. In many text messages, the complainant repeatedly stated that she did not intend to have a sexual relationship with Mr. Kinamore. However, the defence led evidence of communications of a sexual nature and some prior communications entered into evidence by Crown counsel contain content that was sexual in nature or that the defence argued was sexual in nature. No voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of any evidence led by Crown counsel and no application was made pursuant to s. 276 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, to determine the admissibility of any evidence led by the defence. Mr. Kinamore was convicted of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal. Argued Date 2024-12-05 Keywords Criminal law — Evidence — Admissibility — Complainant's sexual activity — Text messages — Accused charged with sexual assault — Whether prior text messages between accused and complainant were of a sexual nature — If so, whether voir dire was required to determine admissibility of any evidence of prior communications of a sexual nature that was led by Crown counsel — Whether application under s. 276 of Criminal Code was required to determine admissibility of any evidence of prior communications of a sexual nature that was led by defence counsel — Whether complainant's prior text messages were relevant to whether she consented to sexual activity? Notes (British Columbia) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The parties were married in June 2015. They lived in Japan until 2016 when they moved to the United Arab Emirates. They separated for a period in 2017, but reconciled in 2018 and then lived together in Oman until March 2020 when they travelled to Ontario for a number of reasons, including to visit Mr. Dunmore's parents. They had planned to return to Oman in early April 2020 however, the pandemic precluded them from doing so and they stayed with Mr. Dunmore's parents in Ontario until January 2021. In the meantime, Ms. Mehralian became pregnant and their son M was born in Ontario in December 2020. The parties and M returned to Oman in January 2021 but came back to Ontario in April 2021. The parties then separated in May 2021. Mr. Dunmore moved to the United Arab Emirates and later Oman, while Ms. Mehralian remained in Ontario with M. Ms. Mehralian commenced proceedings in Ontario in June 2021, seeking a divorce, corollary relief and equalization of property. At the same time, Mr. Dunmore commenced a court proceeding in Oman seeking a divorce and joint custody. Ms. Mehralian contested the jurisdiction of the Omani courts, but in March 2022, the Omani Court of Appeal found that Oman had jurisdiction. In subsequent litigation in which both parties participated, an Omani lower court as well as the Omani Court of Appeal found that the parties had been validly divorced in accordance with Omani law and awarded primary custody of M to Ms. Mehralian. Mr. Dunmore brought a motion in the Ontario Superior Court seeking an order recognizing the validity of the Omani divorce in Ontario and an order returning M to Oman. The two issues were heard separately by two different judges. One judge found that the Omani divorce should be recognized in Ontario. The second judge found that M should not be ordered returned to Oman. Ms. Mehralian appealed the first order and Mr. Dunmore appealed the second. Both appeals were dismissed. Argued Date 2024-12-09 Keywords Family law — Custody — Habitual residence — How should Canadian courts determine the habitual residence of children allegedly abducted from or withheld from a non-Hague Convention signatory state — How should courts balance the countervailing policy objectives outlined in s. 19 of Ontario's Children's Law Reform Act — Whether the statutory definition of habitual residence should apply to cases involving non-Hague Convention signatory countries or should the reformulated hybrid test for habitual residence set out in Office of the Children's Lawyer v. Balev apply — If the statutory definition applies, whether shared parental intention should be the focus of the analysis — Whether the lower courts erred in finding that Ontario has jurisdiction — Whether the lower courts erred in law in exercising jurisdiction over the child in the face of the respondent's attornment to the jurisdiction of the Omani courts — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In 2015, the appellant was charged with the second degree murder of his spouse. Before his trial, a Quebec Superior Court judge allowed his motion for the trial to take place before a judge alone, in accordance with s. 473(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, despite the absence of consent from the respondent prosecutor. The judge was of the opinion that a prosecutor's decision to consent to a trial before a judge alone does not fall within the core of prosecutorial discretion but is instead a tactical decision subject to a court's authority to control its own processes. Considering the particularities of the case, the judge was of the view that the accused had discharged his burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor's decision was unreasonable or unfair in the circumstances. After a trial without jury, the accused was acquitted of second degree murder, but he was convicted of manslaughter. The Court of Appeal allowed the respondent prosecutor's appeal and ordered, among other things, that a new trial be held before a jury on the charge of second degree murder. The court was of the opinion that the trial judge had erred by applying the unreasonableness standard in her review of the prosecutor's refusal to consent despite the fact that the accused had to prove that this refusal constituted an abuse of process. The Court of Appeal found that the accused had failed to prove this and that the impugned judgment was therefore vitiated by an error of law that had the effect of granting the Superior Court jurisdiction that it did not have. The accused's trial was therefore a nullity. Argued Date 2024-12-06 Keywords Criminal law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Procedure — Trial — Trial without jury — Trial judge allowing appellant's motion for trial without jury despite absence of consent of prosecutor — Discretion of prosecutor to consent to trial without jury — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that trial judge had held appellant's trial “without jurisdiction” — Whether prosecutor's appeal of order made by trial judge was governed by s. 676(1)(a) of Criminal Code — If trial was held without jurisdiction, whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in finding that irregularity could not be corrected through application of s. 686(4) of Criminal Code while denying stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 686(8) — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 473, 686(4), (8). Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Section 63(2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (“IRPA”) provides foreign nationals who hold a permanent resident visa with the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Division (“IAD”) against a decision to make a removal order against them made under s. 44(2) or made at an admissibility hearing. In March 2018, the appellant, Dorinela Pepa, came to Canada while in possession of a permanent resident visa as an accompanying dependent child of her father. However, before she came to Canada, Ms. Pepa married. On her arrival in Canada, she advised the point of entry officer of her marriage. Because of the change in her circumstances, Ms. Pepa was admitted for further examination and was not landed. The further examination occurred in the next month, followed by two reports under s. 44 of the IRPA. An admissibility hearing before the Immigration Division (“ID”) of the Immigration and Refugee Board commenced in September 2018. Her visa had expired earlier that month. At the conclusion of the hearing, the ID issued an exclusion order against her. She appealed the decision to the IAD, but the IAD concluded that she had no right to appeal under s. 63(2) because, when the removal order was issued, her visa had expired and so was no longer valid. Ms. Pepa's application to the Federal Court and appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal were dismissed, with those courts concluding that the IAD's decision was reasonable. Argued Date 2024-12-04 Keywords Administrative law — Boards and Tribunals — Jurisdiction — Immigration and Refugee Board, Immigration Appeal Division – Permanent resident visa expiring after its holder arrived in Canada without being landed but before removal order issued — Visa holder appealing to Immigration Appeal Division — Immigration Appeal Division interpreting statutory provision at issue as not conferring it jurisdiction — Application for judicial review to Federal Court and appeal to Federal Court of Appeal dismissed on basis that interpretation by Immigration Appeal Division was reasonable — What is the appropriate standard of review to the decision of the Immigration Appeal Division regarding the statutory right of appeal under statutory provision at issue? — Whether the Immigration Appeal Division erred in construing statutory provision at issue by determining that the appellant lost her right of appeal because the validity date of her permanent resident visa had passed prior to the issuance of the exclusion order — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27, s. 63(2). Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Two people robbed a restaurant with their faces completely covered. The incident was captured on security cameras. The crime remained unsolved for several years until an unsavoury third-party witness implicated the appellant as one of the robbers. The appellant was charged with robbery and disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence under the Criminal Code. The appellant elected to be tried by a provincial court judge. The sole issue at trial was the appellant's identity, and the Crown's evidence on that element was limited to evidence of the unsavoury witness. The trial judge determined that the witness was able to provide recognition evidence. The witness then testified to multiple ways he was able to identify the appellant in the video despite his face being covered. The trial judge accepted the witness's evidence and concluded that some of the evidence at trial corroborated his testimony. The trial judge convicted the appellant of robbery and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal from his conviction and affirmed the conviction. A majority of the Court of Appeal held that there was no error in the trial judge's application of Vetrovec. The trial judge recognized the dangers of relying on the unsavoury witness's evidence and provided reasons that explained how those challenges were resolved. The dissenting justice would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. She concluded that the trial judge had erred in the treatment of the evidence of the Crown's unsavoury witness. The trial judge's Vetrovec errors were errors of law that warranted appellate intervention. Argued Date 2024-11-08 Keywords Criminal Law — Evidence — Assessment —Unsavoury Crown witnesses — Sufficiency of Vetrovec scrutiny — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by affirming the trial judge's reliance on the identification evidence of the Crown's unsavoury witness — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by affirming the trial judge's application of the principles set out in Vetrovec v. The Queen, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The appellants, Duncan and Michelle Sinclair, and their son were on a European holiday and were injured in an accident in Venice, Italy. They were passengers on a water taxi that crashed into a wooden structure. The appellants were both injured. The appellants had arranged their travels through Amex Canada Inc., operating under the name Centurion Travel Service which engages third-party travel suppliers for the provision of travel services such as car services, flights and hotel accommodations, at the request and on behalf of Centurion Card members. The day before flying to Venice, Mr. Sinclair booked transportation from the airport in Venice to their hotel, which included a water taxi ride. The water taxi was dispatched by the respondent, Venizia Turismo, and owned by the respondent, Venice Limousine S.R.L. After returning to Canada, the appellants commenced an action seeking damages arising out of the accident. The respondents moved to dismiss or stay the action against them for want of jurisdiction. The motion judge dismissed the motion. The respondents appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal. A majority of the court found that there was no Ontario contract connecting the dispute to Ontario and allowed the appeal, staying the appellants' action. Argued Date 2024-11-07 Keywords Private international law — Jurisdiction — Presumptive connecting factors — Whether the court below failed to identify the operative contracts — Was the majority right to overturn the motion judge's finding of a connection with an Ontario contract — Was the Court of Appeal right to rule that the connection was rebutted? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

The respondents, Métis Nation – Saskatchewan, and Métis Nation – Saskatchewan Secretariate Inc. (collectively, “the Métis respondents” or “MNS”), have long claimed Aboriginal title and rights (including commercial rights) to large areas of the Province of Saskatchewan. The appellant, Government of Saskatchewan, has consistently opposed the existence or recognition of such rights. In 1994, MNS (along with other plaintiffs) brought an action against Saskatchewan and Canada, seeking declarations that the Métis respondents have existing title and rights within the claimed land area, including use of resources for commercial purposes (the “1994 Action”). In 2005, Justice Koch stayed the 1994 Action, in response to a dispute between the parties with respect to the disclosure of certain documents, but granted permission to the MNS to apply for leave to lift the stay in future; to date, MNS has not applied to have the stay lifted. In 2020, MNS commenced a second action against Saskatchewan, challenging a 2010 policy document issued by the Province which had reiterated that claims to Aboriginal title and commercial rights would not be “accepted” by the provincial government, and would not be subject to the Crown's duty to consult (the “2020 Action”). This action remains ongoing. In March 2021, a resource company (NexGen Energy Ltd.) applied to the Government of Saskatchewan for permits to complete a field mineral exploration program on certain lands that fell within the MNS claim area. In May 2021 and during the early summer of 2021, Saskatchewan met with MNS to consult the Métis about the NexGen permit applications. In July 2021, the Government of Saskatchewan issued three uranium exploration permits to NexGen. In August 2021, MNS filed an originating application for judicial review of the decision of the Minister of Environment to grant the permits. In December 2021, Saskatchewan filed a notice of application for an order to strike portions of MNS's originating application for judicial review, relying on Rules 1-4(3) and 7-9(2)(b) of The Queen's Bench Rules, and arguing that certain paragraphs of the originating application should be struck as vexatious or an abuse of process, given that they addressed matters already covered by the 1994 Action and the 2020 Action. The chambers judge granted the application. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Métis respondents' appeal, reinstating the impugned paragraphs in MNS's originating application. Argued Date 2024-11-06 Keywords Aboriginal law — Aboriginal rights — Aboriginal title — Crown's duty to consult — Civil procedure — Abuse of process — Aboriginal group bringing application for judicial review of provincial government decision to issue mining permits to resource company — Aboriginal group alleging failure to fulfill duty to consult — Provincial government moving to strike portions of originating application in light of two other ongoing actions involving same Aboriginal rights and title claims — Chambers judge striking portions of originating application, based on abuse of process doctrine — Court of Appeal setting aside chambers judge's decision — Whether it is an abuse of process for a claimant to bring multiple actions against the Crown raising the same legal issue in relation to the duty to consult — Whether Haida Nation decision allows claimants to bring duty to consult claims against the Crown based on asserted rights without pursuing the proof of those rights — Queen's Bench Rules (Saskatchewan), rr. 1-4, 7-9. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Between September 1987 and October 1994, the appellant, Izabela Piekut, obtained a series of student loans through a federal government program. She graduated in 1994 and obtained her teaching diploma the following year. The appellant received two further student loans in 2002 and 2003, when she earned a master's degree. In 2008, the appellant enrolled in part-time studies, earning her second master's degree in 2009. That time, she funded her studies herself, with no student loan. In October 2013, the appellant made a consumer proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3. A certificate of full performance of that proposal was granted. In June 2019, the appellant applied to the court for a declaration that, by operation of law, she had been released from all debt and interest associated with her government student loans. Her application was dismissed. Her subsequent appeal was also dismissed. Argued Date 2024-11-05 Keywords Bankruptcy and Insolvency — Procedure — Appellant seeking to have student loan debt released through the proposal process — What is the correct interplay between the phrase “date on which the bankrupt ceased to be a full- or part-time student” under BIA s. 178(1)(g)(i) and the scheme of the regulations under the CSLA and/or the CSFAA specifically noting that under those regulations it is specifically contemplated that a student may cease to be full- or part-time numerous times throughout studies, or afterward, and then apply to be reinstated to that status — Whether, or when she may have been reinstated to that status, or when she again ceased to have that status never to be reinstated to it, the courts below lacked a basis in fact on which to fix a date under s. 178(1)(g)(i) for purposes of determining whether BIA s. 178(1)(g) applied to her consumer proposal or not — Whether a creditor has the onus to prove by evidence that a person who has had a consumer proposal approved by her creditor and the court is by BIA s. 66.28 nevertheless subject to s. 178(1)(g). Notes (British Columbia) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) (CERTAIN INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC) The appellant participated in a planned robbery with intent to steal a firearm from a seventeen year old youth. He and his co-assailants attacked the victim outside his residence. They beat him and stabbed him. Their victim died from his wounds. The appellant and his co-assailants then entered the victim's home, pistol-whipped the victim's mother, and searched the home for firearms. The appellant was charged with first degree murder. He was seventeen years old at the time of the offence and was tried before a jury in Youth Justice Court. He conceded at trial that he was guilty of manslaughter because he willingly participated in a planned robbery. The jury convicted the appellant of first degree murder. The Crown applied to have the appellant sentenced as an adult. The sentencing judge granted the application and sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for 10 years. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from the sentencing decision. Argued Date 2024-10-15 Keywords Criminal law — Sentencing — Young person sentenced as adult — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in sentencing a young person as an adult on the basis that Crown counsel rebutted the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness under s. 72(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) (Certain information not available to the public) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

Armed men entered the home of Jennifer Pan and her parents. They shot and killed Mrs. Pan. They shot and seriously injured Mr. Pan. Jennifer Pan, Mr. Wong, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Mylvaganam and Mr. Carty were charged with first degree murder and attempted murder. They were tried before a jury. Mid-trial, proceedings against Mr. Carty were severed. The jury convicted Jennifer Pan, Mr. Wong, Mr. Crawford and Mr. Mylvaganam on both counts. They appealed from their convictions. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals from the convictions for the attempted murder of Mr. Pan. It allowed the appeals from the convictions for the first degree murder of Mrs. Pan and ordered a new trial in relation to her death. Argued Date 2024-10-17 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Offences — Evidence — Remitting counts for retrial — Jurors — What is the test for placing alternative theories of liability for a homicide to a jury, what deference is due to trial judge's determination of whether an alternative has an air of reality, and whether the curative proviso ought to have been applied to decision not to put alternatives to the jury — Whether appellate courts should remit associated counts for retrial where doing otherwise risks inconsistent trial verdicts, whether the tainting doctrine is part of the test for remittance or for application of curative proviso, and which party bears the onus for establishing tainting and remittance — Scope of the trial judge's duty in a multi-person complex prosecution to tailor to an accused instructions to the jury on use of evidence of a co-accused's propensity for violence — Whether trial judge failed to properly assess evidence in considering reasonable apprehension of bias or appearance of unfairness arising from juror interference, sufficiency of inquiry into juror issues and deference due to trial judge's decisions on juror issues — Admissibility and use of presentations summarizing evidence, what rules and procedural requirements apply to determine admissibility and use by a jury of aids summarizing evidence supporting Crown counsel's case, and whether PowerPoint presentation supporting Crown counsel's case was improperly allowed to go into jury room? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

In February 2019, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (“CRTC” or “Commission”), issued Telecom Notice of Consultation 2019-57 for the purpose of initiating a broad review of mobile wireless services and their associated regulatory framework. The Commission indicated that the review would focus on three key areas, including the future of mobile wireless services in Canada, with a focus on reducing barriers to infrastructure deployment. In inviting comments on the matter, an access issue arose which asked whether the CRTC's jurisdiction over access to municipal infrastructure extended to the installation of 5G small cells. This required the Commission to interpret the term “transmission line” in s. 43 of the Telecommunications Act, S.C. 1993, c. 38. The term “transmission line” is found in the Act's access regime. The access regime authorizes carriers like the appellants to go onto public property to construct, maintain, or operate “transmission lines” with the consent of municipalities. Where terms of access cannot be agreed upon, s. 43(5) accords the CRTC the essentially adjudicative role of considering applications from, and providing redress to, public service providers who cannot gain access to the supporting structure of a transmission line on terms acceptable to them. In the CRTC's view, “transmission line” could not include small cells or any technologies that transmit telecommunications wirelessly such that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes in this area by way of the access regime. The Federal Court of Appeal confirmed this interpretation, and dismissed the appeal brought by Telus Communications Inc. Argued Date 2024-10-16 Keywords Administrative law — Appeals — Boards and tribunals — Regulatory boards — Jurisdiction — Wireless services — Deployment of 5G network — Access regime to public and other property — Transmission lines — CRTC determining that it lacks jurisdiction over carriers' access to municipal infrastructure for the installation of 5G small cells — Application of access regime to 5G small cells turning on interpretation of “transmission line” under Act — Does wireless transmission infrastructure (e.g., 5G small cells) constitute, or is it an integral part of, a “transmission line” within the meaning of s. 43 of the Telecommunications Act, SC 1993, c. 38? Notes (Federal) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

During a search incident to arrest, a man told police that he had a firearm in his backpack. The officers subsequently seized a loaded prohibited firearm. The Crown ultimately stayed the charges from the initial arrest and proceeded to trial on firearms offences only. In a voir dire, the trial judge concluded that the police had breached the man's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights and that his arrest and the subsequent search were unlawful. However, under s. 24(2), she found that the officers would have had a legal basis to detain the man for investigative purposes and that the firearm would have been discoverable during a search incident to such a detention. The discoverability of the firearm mitigated the seriousness of the breaches. She admitted the firearm into evidence and the man was convicted. A majority of the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan held that the trial judge erred in concluding that there was a reasonable suspicion that would justify an investigative detention, which is a question of law reviewable on a standard of correctness. That error undermined the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis. The majority conducted the s. 24(2) analysis afresh, excluded the firearm from evidence and substituted an acquittal. In dissent, Tholl J.A. would have dismissed the appeal and would have held that there was no error in the trial judge's conclusions with respect to a reasonable suspicion for investigative detention. Argued Date 2024-10-11 Keywords Criminal Law – Charter of Rights – Arrest – Investigative detention – Search and Seizure – Whether arresting officers had reasonable suspicion to detain for investigative purposes – Whether concealed firearm was discoverable – Whether evidence of the firearm seized incident to arrest should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter – Whether the Court of Appeal afforded the correct degree of deference to the trial judge's conclusions – Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9, 24(2). Notes (Saskatchewan) (Criminal) (As of Right) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

After several years of deteriorating mental health, the appellant moved into a basement apartment with other tenants. Five days later, the appellant attacked one of the other tenants by striking her with a fireplace poker and then strangling her to death. The appellant called 9-1-1 saying that he wanted to turn himself in because he had just “killed a girl.” When police arrived at the scene, he reiterated his desire to turn himself in, surrendered into custody, and he was interrogated by police. He admitted to killing the victim and explained how he had hit and strangled her. In May 2016, a jury found the appellant unfit to stand trial and he was sent to an in-patient treatment facility to see if he could become fit. At a second hearing in August 2016, after spending over three months in hospital, a second jury reversed the first, finding the appellant fit to stand trial. After a trial by judge and jury, the appellant was convicted of first-degree murder. His conviction appeal was dismissed. Argued Date 2024-10-10 Keywords Criminal law — Defence — Unfit to stand trial — Not criminally responsible — Under s. 2 “unfit to stand trial” of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, should the test articulated in R. v. Taylor (1992), 11 O.R. (3d) 323, be replaced by a test that requires that a mentally disordered defendant have the ability to make rational decisions in the conduct of their defence? — Under s. 16(1) of the Criminal Code, what is the proper meaning of the test in R. v. Oommen, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 507, in regard to the inability of a mentally disordered defendant to apply their knowledge of moral wrongfulness? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

When an inmate is charged with a disciplinary offence in a Saskatchewan provincial correctional centre or remand centre, s. 68 of The Correctional Services Regulations requires the institutional authorities to determine, on a balance of probabilities, that the inmate committed that offence in order to find them responsible. Some of the penalties imposed may deprive inmates of their liberty as that term is used in s. 7 of the Charter. The John Howard Society of Saskatchewan sought an order declaring that s. 68 of the Regulations is contrary to s. 7 of the Charter as it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan dismissed the application, holding that s. 68 of the Regulations does not violate s. 7 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2024-10-09 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to liberty — Fundamental justice — Inmate discipline hearings — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that provincial legislation mandating that inmate discipline hearings operate on a balance of probabilities complies with s. 7 of the Charter — Whether and to what extent the presumption of innocence operates as a principle of fundamental justice in non-criminal settings — The Correctional Services Regulations, 2013, R.R.S. c. C-39.2 Reg 1, s. 68. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

When an inmate is charged with a disciplinary offence in a Saskatchewan provincial correctional centre or remand centre, s. 68 of The Correctional Services Regulations requires the institutional authorities to determine, on a balance of probabilities, that the inmate committed that offence in order to find them responsible. Some of the penalties imposed may deprive inmates of their liberty as that term is used in s. 7 of the Charter. The John Howard Society of Saskatchewan sought an order declaring that s. 68 of the Regulations is contrary to s. 7 of the Charter as it does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan dismissed the application, holding that s. 68 of the Regulations does not violate s. 7 of the Charter. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2024-10-08 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to liberty — Fundamental justice — Inmate discipline hearings — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law in concluding that provincial legislation mandating that inmate discipline hearings operate on a balance of probabilities complies with s. 7 of the Charter — Whether and to what extent the presumption of innocence operates as a principle of fundamental justice in non-criminal settings — The Correctional Services Regulations, 2013, R.R.S. c. C-39.2 Reg 1, s. 68. Notes (Saskatchewan) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE) Mr. Agpoon was charged in December 2018 with offences relating to human trafficking in minors, possession of fentanyl, and a firearms offence. Mr. Flemmings was added to the Indictment in December 2019 on counts related to human trafficking and possession of fentanyl. The case came before the Ontario Court of Justice before the COVID-19 pandemic closed all Ontario courts on March 17, 2020 and thereafter led to varying province-wide and regional closures, capacity restrictions and operational limitations. The Crown preferred a direct indictment on May 19, 2021. Mr. Agpoon and Mr. Flemmings applied to stay proceedings on the basis of delay. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the application and stayed all charges. The Court of Appeal granted an appeal and set aside the stay of proceedings. Argued Date 2024-05-22 Keywords Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Criminal law — What test should trial judges apply under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when deciding whether delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is reasonable? Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (By Leave) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(Publication ban in case) The appellant, Emanuel Lozada, along with other individuals, participated in two fights, the second of which resulted in the fatal stabbing of the victim. At the appellant's trial for manslaughter, the Crown argued that the appellant was liable for manslaughter either as a co-principal with the man alleged to have stabbed the victim, or as an aider and abettor of the stabber. The jury found the appellant guilty. The appellant appealed the manslaughter conviction. He alleged, among other grounds of appeal, that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury on the law of causation with respect to co-principal liability. The majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal. It concluded that read as a whole, the jury instructions accurately put the law of causation as it applied to the appellant. Paciocco J.A., dissenting, would have allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and ordered a new trial. He found that the trial judge twice misdirected jurors by understating the standard of “reasonable foreseeability” they could use in determining whether the appellant's unlawful act amounted to a “significant contributing cause” of the victim's death. Argued Date 2024-02-13 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Co-principal liability — Law of causation — Whether the trial judge erred by misdirecting the jury with respect to the “causation” element of unlawful act manslaughter — Whether the doctrine of “intervening act” applies in the context of a group assault — Criminal Code, s. 21(1)(a) Notes (Ontario) (Criminal) (As of Right) (Publication ban in case) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).

(Publication ban in case) In July 2019, in two separate cases, the respondents appeared in the Court of Québec to answer charges for indictable offences that were punishable by a maximum of 14 years of imprisonment, but that had been punishable by a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment at the time they were allegedly committed. The respondents were thus entitled to a preliminary inquiry. On September 19, 2019, s. 535 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (“Cr. C.”), was amended and the right to a preliminary inquiry was abolished for an accused charged with an indictable offence punishable by less than 14 years of imprisonment. The respondents both requested a preliminary inquiry after September 19, 2019. Both requests were denied by the Court of Québec on the basis that it lacked jurisdiction followed the amendment to s. 535 Cr. C. The Quebec Superior Court denied judicial review in each case. The Quebec Court of Appeal determined that the amendment to s. 535 Cr. C. applies prospectively; it allowed both appeals and referred each case back to the Court of Québec for a preliminary inquiry. Argued Date 2024-02-14 Keywords Criminal law — Preliminary inquiry — Legislation — Prospective application of legislative amendments to preliminary inquiry rules — Interpretation — Whether Quebec Court of Appeal erred in law in finding that right to preliminary inquiry depends on law in force at time of commission of offence with which accused is charged — Whether accused charged with indictable offence has right to preliminary inquiry even if not personally liable to 14 years or more of imprisonment — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 535. Notes (Quebec) (Criminal) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).