Supreme Court to hear 18 appeal cases in winter session, including challenge to Quebec Bill 21

The Supreme Court of Canada will hear 18 appeals during its winter session, with cases including the closely watched appeal of Quebec’s Bill 21, which bans religious symbols for certain public servants, such as teachers, to reflect the government’s secular policies.

English Montreal School Board et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. will be the last case heard in a marathon five-day session that begins Monday, March 23, of next year. More than 50 oral interventions will be heard, with some intervenors representing multiple parties.

The case involves grounds challenging the constitutional validity of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in particular ss. 23, which ensures minority language rights, and 33, which concerns the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Attorney General of Quebec defends Bill 21 based on the notwithstanding clause.

The Quebec Court of Appeal upheld Bill 21 but found it did not infringe on s. 23 rights for English minorities. Legal issues before the SCC include whether the Quebec law intrudes on federal jurisdiction; does the ban impact the control right of English school boards?; does the use of the notwithstanding clause effectively shield the law from judicial review?; and do courts retain power to issue declaratory judgments on rights even when a s. 33 declaration is in place?.

Set for two days on January 14 and 15 is Democracy Watch v. Attorney General of Canada. It considers whether the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner must justify his decisions before a court of law. The case involves a 2021 ethics report on former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Democracy Watch argues that decisions by the ethics commissioner are subject to judicial review, and that an ouster clause in the Conflict of Interest Act, which limits the power of courts to review the commissioner’s decisions, is unconstitutional.

The dispute dates back to the COVID-19 pandemic, when the federal government established a student employment program, developed by Employment and Social Development Canada and the Department of Finance, which recommended WE Charity to administer it.

However, Trudeau pulled the program off the Cabinet agenda when he learned of WE Charity’s involvement, given his past participation in numerous WE Charity events. Sophie Grégoire Trudeau, his then-spouse, was an honorary ambassador for the charity and had also participated in its events.

After Employment and Social Development Canada argued that only WE Charity could implement the program within the proposed timeframe, the program returned to the Cabinet agenda. The Cabinet and Trudeau approved the plan.

In response, two Members of Parliament asked the ethics commissioner to investigate Trudeau’s role in approving the program, arguing he should have recused himself from decision-making due to his past involvement with WE Charity.

The ethics commissioner concluded that Trudeau did not violate the Conflict of Interest Act, which aims to prevent conflicts of interest by the prime minister and other senior federal public office holders.

Democracy Watch sought judicial review of the ethics commissioner’s decision in federal court. However, in a unanimous decision, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that the ouster clause in COIA effectively barred the court from intervening in the dispute. The court also concluded that COIA clearly “reflects Parliament’s intention to give both Parliament and the court distinct supervisory roles in monitoring potential conflict of interests involving public office holders.”

Democracy Watch countered that when it is read properly, COIA “does not preclude judicial review at all.” The advocacy group added that if COIA does in fact bar the courts from reviewing the ethics commissioner’s decision, “it would be unconstitutional, since it would empower the commissioner to determine the limits of his own jurisdiction.”

Canada’s attorney general, meanwhile, told the SCC that the FCA did not err in its ruling. The FCA’s decision “is consistent with a body of case law giving effect to a principled distinction between ethics commissioners and other tribunals,” the attorney general argued. “The FCA did not abdicate judicial oversight of the COIA but recognized the role of other institutions in enforcing it.”

Among other notable appeals, the SCC will also hear Bloc Québécois candidate Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné’s challenge to a lower court ruling that rejected her argument that irregularities should nullify Liberal candidate Tatiana Auguste’s razor-thin victory in the Montreal-area riding of Terrebonne, which she took by a single vote.

Sinclair-Desgagné argues the judgment of the Superior Court of Quebec contains several errors of fact as well as an interpretation of the law and jurisprudence that invites an appeal.

Following the April 28 general election, Auguste was initially declared the winner in the Terrebonne riding, but the result flipped to Sinclair-Desgagné after the votes underwent validation. A judicial recount completed on May 10, however, concluded the Liberals received 23,352 votes – one more than Sinclair-Desgagné.

Sinclair-Desgagné lodged an appeal after a Bloc voter revealed that her special ballot was returned to her due to an error in the address on the envelope provided by Elections Canada. The irregularity caused by Elections Canada prevented the vote of at least one voter from being counted, Sinclair-Desgagné maintains

However, this argument was rejected by Quebec Superior Court Justice Éric Dufour, who ruled that the postal code error did not constitute an irregularity as defined under federal electoral law.

"It is a simple human error, which sometimes occurs in general elections, committed inadvertently and without any dishonest or malicious intent," the judge wrote.

Another SCC appeal to watch for in 2026 will be Facebook Inc. v. Privacy Commissioner, to be heard  Thursday, March 19. The case centres on a long-running dispute over the Cambridge Analytica data breach and whether Facebook violated the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) by allowing third-party apps to access users' personal information without obtaining "meaningful consent."

In 2024, the Federal Court of Appeal overturned a 2023 Federal Court decision, ruling that Facebook had indeed breached its obligations to safeguard user data.

The lower court found that the OPC had failed to discharge its burden on the question of whether Facebook obtained consent sufficient under PIPEDA, and whether Facebook took reasonable steps to protect personal information, especially in relation to third-party app access.

Essentially, there was an “evidentiary vacuum” because there was insufficient evidence to establish that a PIPEDA breach had occurred.

However, the Federal Court of Appeal disagreed with the Federal Court’s holding, finding that there was sufficient “probative evidence,” including Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s own testimony, that “most people” do not read or understand the platform’s Terms of Service and Data Policy.

The Federal Court of Appeal rejected the view that Facebook’s obligations ended once data was shared with third-party apps. It found that Facebook’s oversight of third parties was inadequate – it verified the existence of privacy policies but not their substance, accepted excessive data requests, and delayed remedial actions after the Cambridge Analytica disclosures.

Among the criminal cases that will be heard by the SCC during the winter session are:

• Monday, January 13:  The Crown Attorney for Quebec v. Mario Denis: This case focuses on a critical question of Canadian criminal and constitutional law: Denis was convicted under s. 286.1(2) of the Criminal Code for communicating with an undercover police officer to obtain sexual services from a person under 18. The trial judge initially upheld a 6-month mandatory minimum prison sentence. However, the Quebec Court of Appeal later declared this mandatory minimum unconstitutional, ruling it violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

• Friday, January 16, RB-C vs. His Majesty The King: An Iranian citizen in Canada on a post-graduation work permit was convicted of sexual assault. More than 14 months after conviction, a conditional sentence of two years less a day, plus probation, was ordered, and RB-C appealed on the basis of the post-conviction delay. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which allowed an appeal and ruled that the post-conviction delay exceeded the five-month presumptive ceiling. The Crown appealed the case to the SCC.

 Monday, January 19, Tuesday, January 20, Crown Attorney for Quebec v. Joseph-Christopher Luamba et al.  Luamba is of Congolese origin and has had a driver’s licence since 2019. In a single year, he was stopped by the police three times while driving, identified, and released without a ticket each time. Believing that he had been a victim of racial profiling, he brought an action challenging the constitutional validity of the common law rule granting police officers the power to stop a motor vehicle and its driver without any reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that an offence has been committed and the validity of s. 636 of the Highway Safety Code. The trial judge found that the power to make a traffic stop without any actual grounds and s. 636 of the Highway Safety Code infringed ss. 7, 9 and 15 of the Charter, and that the infringements were not justified by s. 1. The Court of Appeal for Quebec upheld the lower court judge’s findings on the unjustified infringements of ss. 9 and 15 of the Charter in respect of s. 636 of the HSC. Considering the finding on s. 9 of the Charter, the Court of Appeal did not consider it necessary to address the issue of a possible infringement of s. 7. The Crown appealed to the SCC.

• Thursday, January 22:  B.B. v. His Majesty the King: The appellant, B.B., was charged with sexual offences allegedly committed against his two stepdaughters on various dates between 1999 and 2005. He was convicted by the trial judge of sexual assault against one of the complainants. The trial judge conditionally stayed a partly overlapping charge of sexual exploitation. The appellant appealed his conviction and argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the timing of the complainant’s sexual assault allegations. A majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal. One appeal court judge dissented, saying he would have allowed the appeal, set aside the sexual assault conviction, lifted the conditional stay of proceedings on the charge of sexual exploitation, and ordered a new trial on those two charges. The Crown appealed to the SCC.

• Wednesday, February 11, His Majesty the King v. A.M.:  M.P. and A.M. were charged with procuring the sexual services of A.K., who testified at a preliminary inquiry and at trial. A.M. and M.P. applied for leave to cross-examine her at trial and stated the focus of the cross-examination would not be on her past sexual activity. The trial judge permitted some cross-examination and permitted tendering a redacted transcript of A.K.’s testimony at the preliminary inquiry. A.M. and M.P. were not permitted much of their proposed cross-examination, including: questioning A.K. regarding her previous work in the sex trade; how and when she entered the sex trade;her past advertisements; with whom and how she conducted her business in the past; and her continuance of sex work after the time frame alleged in the counts against A.M. and M.P.  The two were convicted of procuring sexual services, receiving a material benefit from sexual services and advertising sexual services. The Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered a new trial on the counts of procuring A.K. 's sexual services, receiving a material benefit from A.K.’s sexual services, and advertising A.K.’s sexual services. The SCC gave the Crown leave to appeal the ruling, with one question at issue being: Is it permissible to rely on the inference that complainants who previously voluntarily engaged in sex work are more likely to voluntarily engage in sex work on subsequent occasions?

• Tuesday, February 17, Megan Rae Korduner v. His Majesty the King: Korduner was a driver involved in a motor vehicle accident.  While answering a police officer’s questions, Korduner said she was drunk and was arrested for impaired operation of a motor vehicle. The officer demanded a breath sample. Korduner refused and was charged for refusing to provide a breath sample. The trial judge held that Korduner’s statements were statutorily compelled by the Traffic Safety Act, that admitting the statement evidence would violate the fundamental principle against self-incrimination in s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that s. 320.31(9) of the Criminal Code is inconsistent with s. 7 of the Charter and not saved by s. 1. The judge excluded the evidence and acquitted Korduner of both charges. A summary conviction appeal was dismissed. The Alberta Court of Appeal allowed an appeal and ordered a new trial, and the Crown was granted leave to appeal that decision to the SCC.

Thursday, February 19, Celine Loyer, et al. v. His Majesty the King: After a trial before a judge alone in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the applicant and a co-accused were convicted of one count of sexual assault of the complainant, for which they were jointly charged. A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of the applicant and co-accused, finding the verdicts were not unreasonable. In dissent, one of the appeal court judges wrote that he would have allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial. He concluded the verdicts were unreasonable because of the way in which they were reached – a reasoning path he considered illogical or irrational.

• Wednesday, March 18, Bevin Kerry Degale v. His Majesty the King: Following a trial, appellant Bevin Kerry Degale was acquitted of aggravated sexual assault committed against his then girlfriend. The complainant did not testify at trial. The trial judge concluded the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew that the complainant was not consenting. The Crown also had not established that the accused intended to cause serious bodily harm to the complainant, as there was no evidence as to how the injuries were caused. The Court of Appeal of Ontario unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal and set aside the acquittal. It entered a conviction for aggravated sexual assault. In the appeal court’s view, the trial judge erred when he concluded that there was no evidence that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting, despite the complainant not having testified at trial. On the basis of the complainant’s statement and compelling circumstantial evidence, the only reasonable inference was that the accused knew the complainant was not consenting or was willfully blind to her consent.  The SCC will look at whether the Court of Appeal for Ontario erred in constructively finding that the mens rea of a sexual assault is established by proof solely that the complainant did not consent to sexual relations.
• Wednesday, March 19, G.G. v. His Majesty the King: The appellant, G.G., was charged with sexual assault on the basis that he engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant. Both the appellant and the complainant agree that sexual intercourse occurred on April 7, 2021; however, they dispute the time at which it occurred and whether it was consensual. Although the trial judge found that the appellant had committed the sexual assault, he entered an acquittal on the basis that the Crown had failed to prove that the sexual assault occurred within the timeframe alleged by the complainant. The Crown appealed the acquittal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and entered a conviction for sexual assault. It concluded that, in the circumstances of this case, it was unnecessary for the Crown to prove that the sexual assault took place in that specific window of time. The SCC will look at whether the Crown is required to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the time of an alleged sexual assault and when is proof of the time of an offence required, and must the defence of alibi have to cover the entire period of the indictment based on the evidence adduced at trial?

Several civil cases will also be heard. They include;

• Wednesday, January 21: Bank of Nova Scotia v. His Majesty the King, which deals with the computation of interest on income tax owing, taking into account an audit adjustment as a tax-loss carryback.
• Tuesday, February 10, Sophia Hemmings, by her Litigation Guardian, Rosalie Brown, et al. v. Lloyd Gregory Padmore, et al. which looks at the issue of causation in a case involving a mother suffering severe brain damage following cardiac arrest while undergoing a caesarian section, as well as the extent of an appellate courts’ power to review trial record when assessing sufficiency of reasons that are, on their face, deficient.
• Thursday, February 12, Maxime Bergeron v. Assemblée parlementaire des étudiants du Québec inc., et al. (Parliamentary Assembly of Quebec students), which looks at whether the lawyer father of a student who had been expelled from a mock parliament should be disqualified for representing his son in the legal fight to revoke that expulsion. The Court of Appeal had found that there was no reviewable error, and public confidence in the proper administration of justice could be compromised if the student’s father were authorised to continue representing him in the particular circumstances of this case. However, legal bodies such as the Quebec, the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, and the Advocates’ Society have been given the right to intervene due to the implications for a client's choice of lawyer.
• Wednesday, February 18, Aphria Inc. v. Canada Life Assurance Company, et al.: This case challenges a 50-year-old legal precedent regarding whether commercial landlords have a duty to mitigate their losses when a tenant breaks a lease. In 2021, Aphria (now part of Tilray Brands) vacated its office space with 7 years remaining on its 10-year lease. Landlords Canada Life Assurance Company, IG Investment Management Ltd., and OPTrust Office Inc. insisted the lease remain in effect, and sued for rental arrears and future rent. Aphria argued that the landlord had a duty to mitigate losses by finding a new tenant, especially since Aphria had provided a list of interested potential replacements. The Ontario Superior Court ruled in favour of the landlords, citing legal precedent, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The SCC granted leave to appeal in June 2025.

Editor's Note: This story was updated to clarify that the Quebec Court of Appeal found Bill 21 did not infringe on s. 23 rights for English minorities.