SCC Hearings

•

Channel • 2 Shows

Government

Government

Updated Weekly
Government

Government

Updated Weekly

02/27/2025

Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia v. Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia (Day 1/2) (41061)

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).

02/27/2025

•

2h 6m
May 15

Ali Bhatti v. His Majesty the King (42107)

The appellant was charged with firearms offences. Police had obtained a general warrant to detain the appellant and search for his phone. The search for the phone authorized by the warrant was limited to the person of the appellant and his immediate and surrounding area. The police stopped the appellant while he was driving. During the execution of the warrant, the police seized three cell phones as well as firearms from the appellant’s vehicle, including in a hidden compartment. The appellant successfully sought to exclude the firearms evidence from his trial pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter on the basis of a violation of his s. 8 Charter right to be free from unreasonable search or seizure. The appellant was acquitted of the firearms offences charged. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal against acquittal and ordered a new trial. It concluded that the application judge erred both in finding that the search was not authorized by the warrant and in finding that the firearms should have been excluded pursuant to s. 24(2). The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal would have dismissed the Crown’s appeal as she agreed with the application judge that, in executing the general warrant, the police exceeded the scope of the order and violated the appellant’s rights under s. 8. She further agreed that the firearms should have been excluded pursuant to s. 24(2). Argued Date 2026-05-14 Keywords Charter of rights — Search and seizure — Remedy — Exclusion of evidence — Whether majority of Court of Appeal erred in law in finding police complied with the warrant — If appellant’s s. 8 Charter rights were breached, whether Court should interfere with application judge’s s. 24(2) Charter analysis. 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).

May 15

•

1h 16m
May 21

His Majesty the King v. Terrell Burke-Whittaker (41786)

On June 9, 2020, Mr. Burke-Whittaker attended a funeral for Dimarjo Jenkins, who had been shot and killed on a street in downtown Toronto on May 26, 2020. The funeral took place at a restaurant in North York. The parking lot behind the restaurant backed onto Highway 401. Late on the evening of the viewing, a vehicle driving on Highway 401 pulled onto the shoulder of the westbound lanes behind the restaurant. Someone in the car started firing shots into the crowd that had gathered in the parking lot. Many people in the parking lot ran into the building, but others stayed in the parking lot and returned fire in the direction of passing traffic on Highway 401. Still others hid behind a dumpster that was close to the door of the building. Mr. Burke-Whittaker was in the parking lot when the shooting started. He took cover behind the dumpster. He took a firearm out of his satchel and, having struggled to c**k it, he came out from behind the dumpster, fired a shot toward the vehicle, and fled into the building through the parking lot door. The incident was relatively brief and captured on video. No one was killed or injured.The police investigation identified Mr. Burke-Whittaker as one of the shooters. He turned himself in on June 22, 2021, just over one year after the shooting. His firearm was never recovered. He pled guilty to one count of possession of a loaded or prohibited or restricted firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code. He was 24 years old at the time of the shooting and has no other criminal record. He was raised by his mother and grandmother in Brampton, as his father was in and out of jail during much of his childhood. He completed high school and began college, but did not finish that course of studies. He has one child born in 2018. At the time of sentencing, he had been accepted into the Toronto Fire Academy. While on bail, he started a vending machine business. Several positive character letters submitted to the sentencing judge indicated that, as a young Black male, he had experienced systemic racism. An Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report was not submitted.The sentencing judge sentenced the respondent to a conditional sentence of two years less a day to be followed by three years’ probation. A majority of the Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence and dismissed the applicant’s appeal of the sentence. The dissenting justice would have allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, and imposed a sentence of 38 months’ incarceration less credit of 17 months. Argued Date 2026-05-19 Keywords Criminal law — Sentencing — Conditional sentencing orders — What principles should guide appellate courts’ review of conditional sentencing orders for offences under Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, 1, s. 95 — When, and based on what principles, appellate courts should reincarcerate offenders after otherwise successful Crown sentence appeal. 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).

May 21

•

3h 9m
Mar 26

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Day 4/4) (41231)

The Act respecting the laicity of the State was passed and assented to on June 16, 2019. Its purposes include affirming the laicity of the state in Quebec and specifying the general obligations arising therefrom, prohibiting the listed persons from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions and requiring those persons to perform their functions with their face uncovered. The Act also contains provisions through which the legislature exercises the override power granted to it by s. 52 of the Quebec Charter and s. 33 of the Canadian Charter and permits the Act to apply notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms.Once the Act came into force, a number of persons, groups of persons and organizations brought separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the Act or certain of its provisions. They raised constitutional grounds, some of which were related to the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. The Superior Court largely dismissed the challenge, except on two points. The Court of Appeal arrived at the same conclusions except as regards the educational language rights that s. 23 of the Canadian Charter guarantees to Canadian citizens belonging to Quebec’s English linguistic minority. Unlike the trial judge, the Court of Appeal found that the Act does not infringe s. 23. Argued Date 2026-03-26 Keywords Constitutional law — Constitutional validity — Division of powers — Pre-Confederation legislation — Constitutional architecture and unwritten principles — Charters of rights — Notwithstanding clauses — Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes — Minority language educational rights — Democratic rights of citizens — Enumerations — Whether grounds raised to challenge constitutional validity of Act respecting the laicity of the State should be accepted — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 3, 23, 28 and 33 — Charter of human rights and freedoms, ss. 50.1 and 52 — Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L-0.3. 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).

Mar 26

•

3h 32m
Mar 23

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (41231)

The Act respecting the laicity of the State was passed and assented to on June 16, 2019. Its purposes include affirming the laicity of the state in Quebec and specifying the general obligations arising therefrom, prohibiting the listed persons from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions and requiring those persons to perform their functions with their face uncovered. The Act also contains provisions through which the legislature exercises the override power granted to it by s. 52 of the Quebec Charter and s. 33 of the Canadian Charter and permits the Act to apply notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms.Once the Act came into force, a number of persons, groups of persons and organizations brought separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the Act or certain of its provisions. They raised constitutional grounds, some of which were related to the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. The Superior Court largely dismissed the challenge, except on two points. The Court of Appeal arrived at the same conclusions except as regards the educational language rights that s. 23 of the Canadian Charter guarantees to Canadian citizens belonging to Quebec’s English linguistic minority. Unlike the trial judge, the Court of Appeal found that the Act does not infringe s. 23. Argued Date 2026-03-23 Keywords Constitutional law — Constitutional validity — Division of powers — Pre-Confederation legislation — Constitutional architecture and unwritten principles — Charters of rights — Notwithstanding clauses — Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes — Minority language educational rights — Democratic rights of citizens — Enumerations — Whether grounds raised to challenge constitutional validity of Act respecting the laicity of the State should be accepted — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 3, 23, 28 and 33 — Charter of human rights and freedoms, ss. 50.1 and 52 — Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L-0.3. 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).

Mar 23

•

3h 37m
Mar 25

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Day 3/3) (41231)

The Act respecting the laicity of the State was passed and assented to on June 16, 2019. Its purposes include affirming the laicity of the state in Quebec and specifying the general obligations arising therefrom, prohibiting the listed persons from wearing religious symbols in the exercise of their functions and requiring those persons to perform their functions with their face uncovered. The Act also contains provisions through which the legislature exercises the override power granted to it by s. 52 of the Quebec Charter and s. 33 of the Canadian Charter and permits the Act to apply notwithstanding certain rights and freedoms.Once the Act came into force, a number of persons, groups of persons and organizations brought separate proceedings challenging the constitutionality of the Act or certain of its provisions. They raised constitutional grounds, some of which were related to the Canadian Charter or the Quebec Charter. The Superior Court largely dismissed the challenge, except on two points. The Court of Appeal arrived at the same conclusions except as regards the educational language rights that s. 23 of the Canadian Charter guarantees to Canadian citizens belonging to Quebec’s English linguistic minority. Unlike the trial judge, the Court of Appeal found that the Act does not infringe s. 23. Argued Date 2026-03-25 Keywords Constitutional law — Constitutional validity — Division of powers — Pre-Confederation legislation — Constitutional architecture and unwritten principles — Charters of rights — Notwithstanding clauses — Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes — Minority language educational rights — Democratic rights of citizens — Enumerations — Whether grounds raised to challenge constitutional validity of Act respecting the laicity of the State should be accepted — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 3, 23, 28 and 33 — Charter of human rights and freedoms, ss. 50.1 and 52 — Act respecting the laicity of the State, CQLR, c. L-0.3. 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).

Mar 25

•

3h 11m
01/16/2025

Pawel Kosicki, et al. v. City of Toronto, Formerly the Corporation of the Borough of York (40908)

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).

01/16/2025

•

2h 48m
01/20/2025

Attorney General of Québec, et al. v. Louis-Pier Senneville, et al. (40882)

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 Floor 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).

01/20/2025

•

2h 32m
11/06/2024

Izabela Piekut v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as Represented by the Minister of National Revenue (40782)

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 Floor 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).

11/06/2024

•

2h 33m
10/23/2023

Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (40197)

Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (“PVE”) contracted with Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. (“Earthco”) for the supply of topsoil for use in a project. After reviewing dated test results for “R Topsoil,” it placed an order for 3,678 cubic yards of “Screened topsoil with extra Organics added.” The contract included exclusion provisions that allowed PVE to test the soil prior to shipment, and that, if PVE waives its right to testing, Earthco is not responsible for the “quality” of the material. PVE waived its right to test the soil. After delivery, testing revealed that the topsoil significantly differed from the earlier test results. PVE was forced to remove the topsoil and then sought compensation from Earthco, which in turn disclaimed responsibility because PVE had waived its right to test the soil before shipment. PVE brought an action against Earthco for damages. The trial judge found that the contract was for a “sale by description” within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1. He held that the topsoil delivered did not correspond to the description in the contract, contrary to s. 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. The trial judge also found, however, that the parties had expressly agreed to absolve Earthco of liability for variations in soil composition that amount of discrepancies in the description of the goods, as permitted by s. 53 of the SGA. Therefore, he dismissed PVE’s action. The Court of Appeal agreed with the trial judge that the contract was for a “sale by description” and that there was a discrepancy between the description of the goods in the contract and the goods delivered. However, the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in using the factual matrix of the contract to determine that the exclusion clauses ousted s. 14 of the Sale of Goods Act. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed PVE’s appeal. Argued Date 2023-10-17 Keywords Sale of goods - Sale of goods — Sale by description — Implied condition as to description — Goods described with reference to quality — Whether statements as to quality can form part of an item’s description Appeals — Courts — Standard of review — Contractual interpretation — Standard of appellate review applicable to trial judge’s interpretation of exclusion clauses — Did the trial judge err in law by relying on the factual matrix of the contract to interpret the exclusion clauses? — Did the Court of Appeal err in reviewing the trial judge’s decision on a standard of correctness? Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) 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).

10/23/2023

•

2h 5m

Unedited audio of oral arguments at the Supreme Court of Canada, available in both English (including simultaneous translation) and the original floor audio (i.e., the original English or French, as presented in Court). Created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. Not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. Original archived webcasts can be found on the Court's website at scc-csc.ca. Feedback welcome: podcast at scchearings dot ca.

Website

SCC Hearings

Top Shows

Kuldeep Kaur Ahluwalia v. Amrit Pal Singh Ahluwalia (Day 1/2) (41061)

Ali Bhatti v. His Majesty the King (42107)

His Majesty the King v. Terrell Burke-Whittaker (41786)

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Day 4/4) (41231)

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (41231)

English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. (Day 3/3) (41231)

Pawel Kosicki, et al. v. City of Toronto, Formerly the Corporation of the Borough of York (40908)

Attorney General of Québec, et al. v. Louis-Pier Senneville, et al. (40882)

Izabela Piekut v. His Majesty the King in Right of Canada as Represented by the Minister of National Revenue (40782)

Earthco Soil Mixtures Inc. v. Pine Valley Enterprises Inc. (40197)

About

SCC Hearings

Top Shows

Top Episodes

About