Supreme Court of Canada Hearings

On May 1, 2020, the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96, came into force. The new Regulations effectively prohibited over 1,500 firearms previously legal for licensed ownership and use.The Regulations were challenged by licensed firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, business owners, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Their applications for judicial review were heard together. The Federal Court dismissed the applications. Four appeals from the Federal Court judgment were consolidated and heard together. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Argued Date 2026-11-10 Keywords Administrative law — Judicial review — Subordinate legislation — Firearms — Governor in Council (GIC) making regulations prohibiting firearms which had previously been legal for licensed ownership and use — Appellants challenging regulation — Whether s. 117.15 of Criminal Code authorizing GIC to effect sweeping overhaul of Canada’s firearms classification regime through regulatory action, including the prohibition of thousands of firearms that have been commonly and lawfully used for hunting and sporting purposes for decades, and in certain instances, for over a century — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.15 — Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96 – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 15. Notes (Federal) (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).

On May 1, 2020, the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96, came into force. The new Regulations effectively prohibited over 1,500 firearms previously legal for licensed ownership and use.The Regulations were challenged by licensed firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, business owners, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Their applications for judicial review were heard together. The Federal Court dismissed the applications. Four appeals from the Federal Court judgment were consolidated and heard together. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Argued Date 2026-11-10 Keywords Administrative law — Judicial review — Subordinate legislation — Firearms — Governor in Council (GIC) making regulations prohibiting firearms which had previously been legal for licensed ownership and use — Appellants challenging regulation — Whether s. 117.15 of Criminal Code authorizing GIC to effect sweeping overhaul of Canada’s firearms classification regime through regulatory action, including the prohibition of thousands of firearms that have been commonly and lawfully used for hunting and sporting purposes for decades, and in certain instances, for over a century — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.15 — Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96 – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 15. Notes (Federal) (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).

On May 1, 2020, the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96, came into force. The new Regulations effectively prohibited over 1,500 firearms previously legal for licensed ownership and use.The Regulations were challenged by licensed firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, business owners, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Their applications for judicial review were heard together. The Federal Court dismissed the applications. Four appeals from the Federal Court judgment were consolidated and heard together. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Argued Date 2026-11-09 Keywords Administrative law — Judicial review — Subordinate legislation — Firearms — Governor in Council (GIC) making regulations prohibiting firearms which had previously been legal for licensed ownership and use — Appellants challenging regulation — Whether s. 117.15 of Criminal Code authorizing GIC to effect sweeping overhaul of Canada’s firearms classification regime through regulatory action, including the prohibition of thousands of firearms that have been commonly and lawfully used for hunting and sporting purposes for decades, and in certain instances, for over a century — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.15 — Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96 – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 15. Notes (Federal) (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).

On May 1, 2020, the Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96, came into force. The new Regulations effectively prohibited over 1,500 firearms previously legal for licensed ownership and use.The Regulations were challenged by licensed firearm owners, hunters, sport shooters, shooting clubs, business owners, and the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights. Their applications for judicial review were heard together. The Federal Court dismissed the applications. Four appeals from the Federal Court judgment were consolidated and heard together. The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals. Argued Date 2026-11-09 Keywords Administrative law — Judicial review — Subordinate legislation — Firearms — Governor in Council (GIC) making regulations prohibiting firearms which had previously been legal for licensed ownership and use — Appellants challenging regulation — Whether s. 117.15 of Criminal Code authorizing GIC to effect sweeping overhaul of Canada’s firearms classification regime through regulatory action, including the prohibition of thousands of firearms that have been commonly and lawfully used for hunting and sporting purposes for decades, and in certain instances, for over a century — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.15 — Regulations Amending the Regulations Prescribing Certain Firearms and Other Weapons, Components and Parts of Weapons, Accessories, Cartridge Magazines, Ammunition and Projectiles as Prohibited, Restricted or Non-Restricted, SOR/2020-96 – Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 7, 8, 15. Notes (Federal) (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).

Following a trial before judge and jury in the Superior Court of Quebec, the appellant was acquitted of one count of first degree murder in the shooting death of a victim that occurred at a restaurant. The only issue at trial was the identity of the shooter and whether proof established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the appellant. On appeal, the Crown submitted that the trial judge erred in law in instructing the jury to acquit the appellant if it believed, or had a reasonable doubt, that the shooter had blond hair. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made a material error in the jury instructions regarding the eyewitness identification evidence. Argued Date 2026-11-05 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Evidence — Identification — Eyewitness identification evidence — Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that if it accepted eyewitness evidence that the shooter had blond hair, or was left with a reasonable doubt by that evidence, it had to acquit the appellant — Whether trial judges can identify exculpatory portions of eyewitness evidence for the jury — Whether trial judges can provide a W.(D.) instruction tying exculpatory portions of eyewitness evidence to the concept of reasonable doubt. 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).

Following a trial before judge and jury in the Superior Court of Quebec, the appellant was acquitted of one count of first degree murder in the shooting death of a victim that occurred at a restaurant. The only issue at trial was the identity of the shooter and whether proof established beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the appellant. On appeal, the Crown submitted that the trial judge erred in law in instructing the jury to acquit the appellant if it believed, or had a reasonable doubt, that the shooter had blond hair. The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made a material error in the jury instructions regarding the eyewitness identification evidence. Argued Date 2026-11-05 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Evidence — Identification — Eyewitness identification evidence — Whether the trial judge erred by instructing the jury that if it accepted eyewitness evidence that the shooter had blond hair, or was left with a reasonable doubt by that evidence, it had to acquit the appellant — Whether trial judges can identify exculpatory portions of eyewitness evidence for the jury — Whether trial judges can provide a W.(D.) instruction tying exculpatory portions of eyewitness evidence to the concept of reasonable doubt. Notes (Quebec) (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).

Following a trial before judge and jury in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the appellant was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. A man wearing a police-style vest knocked on the door of the home of the victims, a father and his adult son. The father opened the door and the man drew a handgun and opened fire. The bullets struck both the father and son. The main issue at trial was the identity of the shooter. The father testified, but was not asked to identify the shooter in the courtroom. Parts of his description of the shooter did not match the appellant. In finding the appellant guilty, the jury must have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person at the front door. The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing there were errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on eyewitness identification evidence. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2026-11-04 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Evidence — Identification — Eyewitness evidence — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding a caution about exculpatory eyewitness evidence was justified — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding any prejudice was ameliorated by the functional equivalent of a W.(D.) instruction. Notes (British Columbia) (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).

Following a trial before judge and jury in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the appellant was convicted of attempted murder, aggravated assault and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence. A man wearing a police-style vest knocked on the door of the home of the victims, a father and his adult son. The father opened the door and the man drew a handgun and opened fire. The bullets struck both the father and son. The main issue at trial was the identity of the shooter. The father testified, but was not asked to identify the shooter in the courtroom. Parts of his description of the shooter did not match the appellant. In finding the appellant guilty, the jury must have concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person at the front door. The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing there were errors in the trial judge’s instructions to the jury on eyewitness identification evidence. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. Argued Date 2026-11-04 Keywords Criminal law — Charge to jury — Evidence — Identification — Eyewitness evidence — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by finding a caution about exculpatory eyewitness evidence was justified — Whether the Court of Appeal erred by concluding any prejudice was ameliorated by the functional equivalent of a W.(D.) instruction. Notes (British Columbia) (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).

At the end of June 2010, an amendment to s. 224 of the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 40.1 (“CPA”), came into force; it aimed to eliminate the business practice that consisted in advertising a good or service at a price that did not include the full amount that the consumer had to pay at the time of payment. Two weeks after that amendment, the appellant Michael Silas, represented by the Consumers’ Union and a person designated for the purposes of the class action, consulted Air Canada’s Internet site to acquire a ticket. Mr. Silas had to go through three navigation steps. Between the first and last step, the ticket price increased by $124.46, that is, by the addition of taxes, fees, charges and other surcharges. The appellants sought a reduction in the price paid and an award of punitive damages. Air Canada, for its part, argued that the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy rendered that provision of the CPA constitutionally inapplicable. Alternatively, it argued that it did not breach the Act.The Superior Court excluded the application of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. It refused to impose a reduction in price, because the presumption of prejudice did not apply and because the prohibited practice was not capable of influencing the consumer’s behaviour. It also refused to award punitive damages against Air Canada, because the evidence showed that it was not necessary in order to prevent a repetition of the conduct. The Court of Appeal confirmed the Superior Court’s analysis regarding the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy. It concluded, however, that the trial judge committed a reviewable error concerning the presumption of prejudice but did not impose a reduction in price on Air Canada, because there was no basis on which to quantify the reduction of the obligation to which the consumers were entitled. It, however, awarded punitive damages, because, in its view, Air Canada demonstrated carelessness and serious negligence with respect to consumers. Argued Date 2026-10-16 Keywords Consumer protection — Pre contractual obligation to honour advertised price as required by Consumer Protection Act — Class action — Claim for compensatory damages — Claim for punitive damages — Doctrine of federal paramountcy — Whether s. 224(c) creates contractual obligation for merchants to honour advertised price when consumer decides to enter into contract — To obtain reduction of obligation of s. 272(c) in case of offence under s. 224(c), whether consumer must provide evidence other than evidence of commission of offence — Whether restrictive interpretation of ss. 224(c) and 272(c) by lower courts undermined effectiveness of Act and legislature’s intention to eliminate drip pricing practices and other unlawful practices — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 40.1, ss. 224 and 272. Notes (Quebec) (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).

At the end of June 2010, an amendment to s. 224 of the Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 40.1 (“CPA”), came into force; it aimed to eliminate the business practice that consisted in advertising a good or service at a price that did not include the full amount that the consumer had to pay at the time of payment. Two weeks after that amendment, the appellant Michael Silas, represented by the Consumers’ Union and a person designated for the purposes of the class action, consulted Air Canada’s Internet site to acquire a ticket. Mr. Silas had to go through three navigation steps. Between the first and last step, the ticket price increased by $124.46, that is, by the addition of taxes, fees, charges and other surcharges. The appellants sought a reduction in the price paid and an award of punitive damages. Air Canada, for its part, argued that the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy rendered that provision of the CPA constitutionally inapplicable. Alternatively, it argued that it did not breach the Act.The Superior Court excluded the application of the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and federal paramountcy. It refused to impose a reduction in price, because the presumption of prejudice did not apply and because the prohibited practice was not capable of influencing the consumer’s behaviour. It also refused to award punitive damages against Air Canada, because the evidence showed that it was not necessary in order to prevent a repetition of the conduct. The Court of Appeal confirmed the Superior Court’s analysis regarding the application of the doctrine of federal paramountcy. It concluded, however, that the trial judge committed a reviewable error concerning the presumption of prejudice but did not impose a reduction in price on Air Canada, because there was no basis on which to quantify the reduction of the obligation to which the consumers were entitled. It, however, awarded punitive damages, because, in its view, Air Canada demonstrated carelessness and serious negligence with respect to consumers. Argued Date 2026-10-16 Keywords Consumer protection — Pre contractual obligation to honour advertised price as required by Consumer Protection Act — Class action — Claim for compensatory damages — Claim for punitive damages — Doctrine of federal paramountcy — Whether s. 224(c) creates contractual obligation for merchants to honour advertised price when consumer decides to enter into contract — To obtain reduction of obligation of s. 272(c) in case of offence under s. 224(c), whether consumer must provide evidence other than evidence of commission of offence — Whether restrictive interpretation of ss. 224(c) and 272(c) by lower courts undermined effectiveness of Act and legislature’s intention to eliminate drip pricing practices and other unlawful practices — Consumer Protection Act, CQLR, c. P 40.1, ss. 224 and 272. 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).