Beverley McLachlin

In an appeal from judicial review proceedings, the appellants challenged a law society decision refusing accreditation to a proposed law school because of a mandatory covenant restricting sexual intimacy to marriage between a man and a woman.

The majority held that the regulator had statutory authority to consider the covenant’s impact on equal access, diversity in the profession, and potential harm to LGBTQ prospective students.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the Court found the decision proportionately balanced freedom of religion with statutory public-interest objectives and was reasonable.

The appeal was dismissed, with concurring reasons and a dissent that would have allowed the appeal.

On judicial review of a regulator’s refusal to approve a proposed law school with a mandatory religious covenant, the appellate court addressed statutory authority, administrative reasonableness, and constitutional balancing.

The majority held the regulator could consider barrier effects on equal access, diversity, and public confidence when assessing the public interest, and could proceed through its chosen member-vote process.

Applying the Doré/Loyola framework, the court found a proportionate balance between limited religious freedom impacts and significant equality-related statutory objectives.

The regulator’s non-approval decision was restored.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld decisions finding that complaints challenging Indian Act registration provisions were bare attacks on legislation, not discrimination in the provision of services under s. 5 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The Tribunal’s dismissal was upheld because legislation itself is not a service under that provision.

A Métis federal inmate challenged correctional authorities’ use of psychological and actuarial risk tools for Indigenous offenders, alleging statutory and Charter breaches.

The Court held that authorities breached their duty under s. 24(1) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act by continuing to rely on the tools without taking reasonable steps to confirm validity for Indigenous persons.

The Court declined to find violations of ss. 7 or 15 of the Charter on the evidentiary record.

Declaratory relief was granted in light of the prolonged and ineffective grievance history, but no broader injunctive remedy was ordered.

The City sought to hold identified rioters solidarily liable for the full loss of specific patrol cars damaged during a hockey riot.

The Court held that solidarity under article 1480 C.C.Q. requires impossibility of identifying who caused the injury and, for joint participation, a common intention, both absent on these facts.

It also held article 1526 C.C.Q. did not apply because the trial judge found distinct identifiable injuries linked to distinct faults rather than one single injury caused by common or contributory faults.

Liability in solidum could not be used to bypass the Civil Code framework for extracontractual solidarity.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent favoring solidary liability for groups that destroyed each vehicle together.

In an Internet defamation dispute, the appellants sought a stay of an Ontario libel action in favour of an Israeli forum.

The Court held that tort situs remains a presumptive connecting factor for jurisdiction simpliciter in online defamation, while requiring robust forum non conveniens review.

The majority found material errors in the forum non conveniens analysis and concluded Israel was clearly the more appropriate forum.

The appeal was allowed and the stay motion was granted.

A lawyer appealed a professional misconduct finding based on in-court incivility during a securities prosecution.

The majority held that reasonableness review applied and accepted the disciplinary framework, but found its application unreasonable on the record.

The Court concluded the allegations were made in good faith with sufficient factual foundation in context.

The appeal was allowed and the complaints were dismissed.

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed an originating application for judicial review of a religious congregation’s disfellowship decision.

It held that judicial review is generally limited to public decision makers, that there is no free-standing procedural fairness claim without an underlying legal right, and that ecclesiastical issues in this dispute were non-justiciable.

The accused sought to withdraw a guilty plea after learning it carried serious immigration consequences.

A majority held that an accused must show a reasonable possibility of subjective prejudice, meaning they would have pleaded differently if informed.

The court found the plea was uninformed but dismissed the appeal because that prejudice was not established.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging a workplace safety regulation and an administrative penalty imposed after a fatal forestry incident.

The majority held the regulation was within delegated authority and upheld the tribunal’s interpretation allowing an employer-owner to be penalized under the governing scheme.

Dissenting judges would have found the regulation invalid or the penalty interpretation patently unreasonable.

In a negligence appeal concerning injuries suffered after minors stole an unlocked vehicle from a commercial garage, the Court addressed whether the garage owner owed a duty of care to the injured passenger.

The majority held that while theft risk was foreseeable, the record did not establish reasonable foreseeability of personal injury from unsafe operation of the stolen vehicle in the specific circumstances.

Applying Anns/Cooper, the majority found the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie duty of care and dismissed the claim against the garage owner.

The dissent would have upheld the existing duty category for foreseeable physical injury and maintained liability findings.

This constitutional appeal concerned amendments to a provincial pay equity regime addressing systemic wage discrimination affecting predominantly female job classes.

The court held that provisions delaying and limiting compensation adjustments until periodic audit postings, and restricting retroactive adjustments before posting, infringed equality rights under section 15(1) of the Charter.

The majority found the scheme effectively tolerated periods of uncompensated inequity and was not justified under section 1.

The cross-appeal challenging repeal provisions failed for lack of proof of unconstitutionality.

On a constitutional appeal concerning Quebec pay equity legislation, the appellants challenged a six-year delay in access to pay equity adjustments for predominantly female workplaces without male comparators under s. 38 of the Pay Equity Act.

The Court split on whether the delay infringed s. 15(1) of the Charter, with one set of reasons finding an infringement and another finding no discriminatory distinction or impact.

A majority result nonetheless upheld the provision because the appeal failed overall, and the challenged section remained valid.

The reasons address substantive equality, comparator methodology, and whether implementation delay in a complex remedial regime can be justified under s. 1.

This appeal addressed habitual residence under Article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after a parent retained children in Canada beyond a time-limited consent period.

The Court adopted a hybrid, multi-factor approach that evaluates all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to parental intent and the child's links to each state.

The Court also endorsed a non-technical approach to Article 13(2), requiring proof of sufficient maturity and a genuine objection before discretion is exercised.

Although the matter was moot, the appeal was resolved to clarify national law and emphasize expeditious handling of return proceedings.

Constitutional appeal concerning whether a provincial liquor-control provision limiting possession of non-provincially sourced alcohol violated s. 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Court held that s. 121 bars laws that in essence and primary purpose restrict interprovincial trade like tariffs, but does not invalidate laws whose trade impacts are incidental to broader regulatory objectives.

It also held that lower courts cannot depart from binding precedent absent genuinely transformative legal developments or new social and legislative facts.

Applying that framework, the impugned provision's main purpose was provincial control of liquor distribution and use, not trade restriction.

The appeal was allowed and the provision was upheld.

Two accused were convicted at trial of second degree murder in the death of a child and the provincial appellate court substituted first degree murder convictions under the unlawful confinement provision.

The Court confirmed that an appeal as of right after a substituted guilty verdict is limited to legal questions tied to that substituted verdict, while challenges to the affirmed lesser convictions require leave.

It also confirmed the provincial appellate court had jurisdiction over the Crown appeals from acquittals on first degree murder and upheld the substituted first degree murder verdicts.

The Court held that unlawful confinement was established in the parent-child context and that confinement and murder formed part of the same transaction.

The Court considered whether accepting a benefit to use government contacts to promote private sales to First Nations constituted influence peddling connected to government business under s. 121(1)(d)(i) of the Criminal Code.

A majority held the phrase should be interpreted broadly and includes matters that could be facilitated by government given its mandate.

The appeal was dismissed, with a dissent that would have restored the acquittal.

The appeal addressed whether a trustee under a labour and material payment bond must disclose the bond’s existence to potential beneficiaries.

A majority held that where non-disclosure would unreasonably disadvantage a beneficiary, fiduciary duties require reasonable notice steps.

Because the contractor did nothing to alert subcontractors in circumstances where such bonds were uncommon, it breached trust obligations, and the case was remitted for damages quantification.

The appellant challenged an order granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction requiring removal of identifying information about a young victim after a publication ban.

The Court held that for mandatory interlocutory injunctions, the first step requires a strong prima facie case, not merely a serious issue.

Because the Crown sought the injunction within a criminal contempt proceeding, it had to show a strong prima facie case of criminal contempt and failed to meet that burden.

The trial judge applied the correct framework, so appellate intervention was not warranted.

The appeal concerned a specific claim for compensation based on historic pre-emption of Indigenous village lands and alleged Crown breaches before and after Confederation.

The Court held that reasonableness review applied to the Tribunal’s validity decision and restored findings that fiduciary obligations were breached in relation to the village lands.

The majority concluded the Tribunal reasonably found both pre-Confederation and post-Confederation fiduciary breaches and reasonably interpreted the extended meaning of the Crown for statutory responsibility.

The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal’s validity decision was restored, with compensation issues left to the compensation stage.