Canada Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Canada Case Law

  • 15 May 2026

    Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia

    Citation
    2026 SCC 16
    Court
    Supreme Court of Canada

    Majority (Wagner C.J. and Kasirer, Martin, O’Bonsawin and Moreau JJ.) recognized a new nominate tort of 'intimate partner violence' because the pleaded facts disclosed a wrongful form of coercive and controlling conduct in an intimate partnership that offends legal interests in dignity, autonomy and equality, and because existing torts (assault, battery, IIED) were held inadequate to remedy that distinct wrong; the new tort requires (1) conduct arising in an intimate partnership or its aftermath, (2) an intentional engagement in the impugned conduct, and (3) that the conduct, objectively cons…

    • Intimate partner violence
    • Coercive control
    • Recognition of novel tort
    • Assault
    • Battery
    • Intentional infliction of emotional distress

  • 15 May 2026

    Brar v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

    Citation
    2026 FC 631
    Court
    Federal Court

    The Officer's decision was unreasonable because the reasons failed to engage with and explain rejection of the Applicant's evidence regarding the employer's primary activities and did not disclose a coherent, rational chain of analysis regarding the NAICS 1114 'under cover' assessment; the decision is set aside and the matter remitted to a different decision-maker.

    • Agri-food pilot
    • Permanent residence eligibility
    • Naics classification
    • Standard of review

  • 15 May 2026

    R. v. Khodayar

    Citation
    2026 ONCA 349
    Court
    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    The appeal is dismissed because Schertzer controls: testimony (or refusal to answer) that constitutes the actus reus of an obstructing justice offence is not protected by s.13 since the witness gave no incriminating 'quid' and therefore is not entitled to the 'quo'; vertical stare decisis required the trial judge to follow Schertzer and admit the transcripts.

    • Section 13 canadian charter - testimonial self-incrimination
    • Obstruction of justice (criminal code s.139(2))
    • Admissibility of prior testimony
    • Stare decisis (vertical vs horizontal)

  • 15 May 2026

    R. v. M.T.

    Citation
    2026 ONCA 346
    Court
    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    The court held that no error warranting reduction of the 17-month custodial sentence was shown: the sentencing judge properly balanced denunciation and deterrence with mitigating factors including youth and Gladue material and his discretionary choice is entitled to deference; however certain s.161(1) terms were unlawful or overbroad and the appeal is allowed in part to vary the s.161(1) order by striking the non-authorized non-contact provision, narrowing the geographic restriction to 500 metres and removing the mother and brother from that restriction, and redrafting the supervision/contact…

    • Sentencing principles
    • Restraint for youthful offenders
    • Gladue factors
    • Geographic and non-contact orders
    • Appellate review of sentence

  • 15 May 2026

    Tatiana Gorenstein v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

    Citation
    2026 FCA 97
    Court
    Federal Court of Appeal

    Appeal dismissed because the Federal Court lacked statutory jurisdiction under the Federal Courts Act to adjudicate this essentially private contractual dispute between the appellant and Meta; the parties conceded the lack of federal jurisdiction and the Federal Court's reasoning on enforceability of forum selection clauses was not endorsed because necessary findings under Douez and Dell were not made.

    • Forum selection clause
    • Terms of service
    • Choice of law
    • Contract of adhesion
    • Jurisdictional competence
    • Enforceability of online arbitration/choice clauses

  • 15 May 2026

    R. v. Stewart

    Citation
    2026 ONCA 350
    Court
    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because the sentencing judge did not commit an error in principle: the allocation of Downes credit was within her discretion and adequately supported by the record, and she correctly applied Morris by requiring and assessing the factual nexus between the appellant's experience of anti-Black racism and the offences and finding none.

    • Unauthorized possession of a non-restricted firearm (s.92(1) cc)
    • Failure to comply with release order (s.145(5)(a) cc)
    • Downes credit for bail conditions
    • Morris jurisprudence on anti-black systemic racism in sentencing
    • Appellate intervention in sentencing
    • Nexus requirement between background and offending

  • 15 May 2026

    Seydanoglu v. Canada (Attorney General)

    Citation
    2026 FC 633
    Court
    Federal Court

    The CRA officer reasonably concluded the applicant failed to verify the expenses needed to establish net self-employment income above the $5,000 threshold and failed to show the requisite COVID-19-related 50% income reduction; those reasonable, transparent findings justify dismissing the judicial review application.

    • Eligibility criteria
    • Reasonableness review
    • Self-employment income
    • Income verification
    • Canada recovery benefits act

  • 15 May 2026

    Best v. Racicot

    Citation
    2026 FC 632
    Court
    Federal Court

    Although the plaintiff presented a reasonable explanation and demonstrated continuing intention, the motion for extension and for reconsideration/variance/appeal was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to articulate any meritorious grounds that would overcome the high threshold for reopening final interlocutory orders; additionally, the underlying Statement of Claim was properly struck as it failed to particularize allegations against each defendant and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

    • Charter s7 and s15 claims
    • Motion to strike (strike pleadings)
    • Extension of time under federal court rules
    • Reconsideration (rule 397)
    • Variance (rule 399)
    • Appeal of discretionary orders (rule 51)

  • 15 May 2026

    R. v. Nygard

    Citation
    2026 ONCA 345
    Court
    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    Although Dr. Haskell's expert evidence was admitted in error, the error was harmless and the criminal curative proviso (s.686(1)(b)(iii)) applies because the jury instructions and trial circumstances made it inevitable the verdicts would be the same; the trial judge did not err in admitting and instructing on similar fact evidence used on a cross-count basis; fresh medical evidence would not have affected the sentencing result; accordingly the convictions and 11-year sentence are upheld and the appeal is dismissed.

    • Expert evidence (neurobiology of trauma)
    • Similar fact evidence (cross-count use)
    • Curative proviso s.686(1)(b)(iii)
    • Fresh evidence on sentencing
    • Publication ban

  • 15 May 2026

    Sheridan Retail Inc. v. Roy

    Citation
    2026 ONCA 347
    Court
    Court of Appeal for Ontario

    The Court upheld the motion judge: the action as a whole arose from Mr. Roy's expression on matters of public interest, SRI failed the merits-based hurdle because its causes of action lacked substantial merit and lacked particularized evidence of harm, the public interest in protecting expression outweighed any harm, damages under s.137.1(9) were appropriate for bad faith/improper purpose and the costs award was procedurally flawed and reduced to $75,000.

    • Anti-slapp motions
    • S.137.1 courts of justice act
    • Merits-based hurdle
    • Public interest weighing
    • Damages under s.137.1(9)
    • Full indemnity costs