SCC 2026

The appellants challenged a criminal appeal judgment from the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral ruling the same day.

The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons of the majority below.

The intervener participated, but the dispositive issue was resolved by adopting the appellate majority's reasoning.

On a mootness appeal arising from pandemic-era entry restrictions, the Court exercised discretion to decide the constitutional questions on the merits.

The Court held that mobility rights under s. 6 of the Charter protect movement across provincial borders and that the challenged travel restrictions limited rights under s. 6(1) and s. 6(2).

Applying the Oakes framework, the Court found the limitations justified under s. 1 in the circumstances of a grave public health emergency.

The appeal was allowed in part, the mootness dismissal was set aside, and the lower court order was modified accordingly.

In a Crown appeal from an acquittal for attempted obstruction of justice, the Court addressed whether an accused lawyer may invoke the innocence-at-stake exception to seek access to privileged client communications.

The Court held the exception is available to accused lawyers and that the McClure framework can be adapted, but found it was premature for lower courts to find a fair-trial breach before such an application was brought.

On the Crown’s concession of a s. 8 breach arising from unauthorized monitoring of a lawyer-client call, the majority applied s. 24(2) and excluded the non-privileged portion of the intercepted call.

The majority concluded the seriousness of state conduct and privacy impact outweighed society’s strong interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appeal was dismissed, with dissenting reasons favouring admission of the evidence and a new trial.

In a property insurance appeal, insured homeowners sought full guaranteed rebuilding costs after a total-loss flood, including legal-compliance costs imposed by conservation authority requirements.

The Court interpreted the standard form policy and guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement together, holding the compliance-cost exclusion remained operative except for the specified additional $10,000 coverage.

The majority held the exclusion’s language was unambiguous and that applying it did not nullify the endorsement’s core benefit of coverage beyond the policy limit.

Dissenting reasons would have allowed broader recovery at least for compliance costs tied to laws in force at renewal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant challenged a trial ruling under s. 12(1) of the Canada Evidence Act that permitted cross-examination on prior convictions after a Corbett application in a murder jury trial.

The Court clarified the Corbett framework, emphasizing that admissibility turns on whether convictions meaningfully support a credibility inference and whether prejudice, including moral and propensity prejudice, outweighs probative value.

The majority held the trial judge erred by admitting youth and certain violent convictions, but applied the curative proviso because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming.

Concurring judges would have found no reviewable Corbett error and dismissed the appeal on that basis.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction was upheld.

The appellant challenged a criminal appeal decision from the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Court heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment the same day.

It held that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of the majority in the provincial appellate court.

The appeal was dismissed.