Summaries Sunday: Supreme Advocacy

One Sunday each month we bring you a summary from Supreme Advocacy LLP of recent decisions at the Supreme Court of Canada. Supreme Advocacy LLP offers a weekly electronic newsletter, Supreme Advocacy Letter, to which you may subscribe. It’s a summary of all Appeals, Oral Judgments and Leaves to Appeal granted from March 1 – April 17, 2026 inclusive.

Appeal

Charter: Discrimination Based on Sex; Subsidized Childcare
Quebec (Attorney General) v. Kanyinda, 2024 QCCA 144; 2026 SCC 7 (41210) Mar. 6, 2026

Québec became the first province in Canada to introduce universal subsidized daycare, which marked an important step in the province’s goal to make equal access to the workforce a reality. Now governed by the Educational Childcare Act which aims to help parents reconcile their work or study obligations with their family responsibilities (s. 1). At issue is s. 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, a regulation made under the ECA. Section 3 lists the categories of people eligible to receive subsidized daycare, including residents of Québec who are Canadian citizens, permanent residents, international students, holders of a temporary resident permit or a work permit, and those with refugee status. Québec does not provide this subsidy to refugee claimants who have yet to obtain refugee status. Because the application process for refugee status often takes years to complete, this denial of access to subsidized daycare impacts the ability of some refugee claimants with young children to enter the workforce. The S.C.C. agreed with the Qué. C.A. that s. 3 of the RCR discriminates based on sex, thus infringing s. 15(1) of the Charter, and does so in a way that cannot be saved by s. 1.

Criminal Law: Forfeiture
R. v. Nguyen, 2024 QCCA 674; 2026 SCC 10(41400) Apr. 17, 2026

This matter is remanded to the Court of Québec, which does have jurisdiction to proceed with the criminal forfeiture hearing herein. First, the stay of the trial proceedings is not, for the purposes of the forfeiture matter, tantamount to an acquittal. The stay may be equated to an acquittal for the purposes of the plea of autrefois acquit and the exercise of appeal rights because they engage a person’s risk of criminal liability and liberty interests. But the stay has no decisive effect on the forfeiture proceedings. The matters required to establish that the property is criminally tainted were not decided in the respondents’ favour in a prior criminal proceeding, such that it is open to the Crown to lead evidence on those issues to support its forfeiture application. There is no necessary issue estoppel between matters decided on the stay; whether the delay was unreasonable; and matters at issue in subsequent forfeiture proceedings; as to whether the property is tainted by crime. The stay does not oust statutory jurisdiction in respect of forfeiture. Second, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Court of Québec does not have the power herein to order forfeiture under the principal provisions invoked by the Crown in the Criminal Code and the CDSA, which tie that authority to trial and sentencing proceedings. Jurisdiction to conduct criminal forfeiture proceedings survives under statutory rules that operate independently of trial and sentencing. Parliament has provided for a number of circumstances in which forfeiture can be ordered even where no accused has been tried.

Criminal Law: Implied Licence Doctrine
R. v. Singer,2023 SKCA 123; 2026 SCC 8(41090) Mar. 20, 2026

The police here had an implied licence at common law to step onto Mr. Singer’s driveway, approach his truck, and knock on the truck window. The police were entitled to do so on legitimate business: to investigate a recent impaired driving complaint. This police conduct did not, on its own, constitute a “search” under s. 8 of the Charter. The Sask. C.A.’s decision on this point was wrongly decided. At the same time, the implied licence to enter the driveway and knock ended at the door of the truck. The police intruded onto Mr. Singer’s reasonable expectation of privacy and conducted a search when they opened the truck door. There is no need to recognize a new ancillary police power to provide potential authority to open the truck door. This Court’s decision in R. v. MacDonald, 2014 SCC 3, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 37, already recognizes the common law power of the police to conduct a “safety search” when they have reasonable grounds to believe that the search “is reasonably necessary to eliminate an imminent threat to the safety of the public or the police” (para. 40). A safety search “will generally be conducted by the police as a reactionary measure” and “will generally be unplanned”, since it is “carried out in response to dangerous situations created by individuals, to which the police must react ‘on the sudden’” (para. 32). Even so, the evidence is not excluded under s. 24(2). The Charter-infringing state conduct was not so serious; nor did it have more than a moderate impact on Mr. Singer’s Charter-protected interests.

Insurance: Presumption of Death
Riddle v. Ivari, 2023 QCCA 1111; 2026 SCC 9 (40986) Apr. 10, 2026

The Chief Justice wrote as follows (at para. 10) “… As regards the determination of the applicable legal framework for proving the return of a person declared dead, the trial judge, like the Court of Appeal, made no error in finding that this could be proved through any contemporaneous manifestation that makes it more probable than not that the person who disappeared is currently alive. The evidence must be clear and convincing so as to rebut the presumption of death, but no specific threshold of certainty is required. While the physical presence of the person declared dead will always be the best proof that they are currently alive, a judge may be satisfied with evidence establishing that the person is still living, particularly where the circumstances suggest that their disappearance or reclusion is voluntary. Proof of return therefore does not require a different standard of proof. In Québec civil law, unless the legislature specifies otherwise, the standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities.”

Oral Judgment

Criminal Law: Fresh Evidence
R. v. Maadani, 2025 ONCA 582; 2026 SCC 11 (41972) Judgment rendered April 17, 2026

“The Chief Justice: “A majority of this Court is of the view that Huscroft J.A., writing for the majority of the Court of Appeal, made no reviewable error in dismissing the application for new evidence for lack of cogency. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Justices Karakatsanis and Côté would have allowed the appeal. They are of the view that, in its cogency analysis, the majority erred in law in making its own determination of the witness’s ultimate credibility. The majority also erred in its analysis of due diligence. Justices Karakatsanis and Côté agree with Copeland J.A. that the fresh evidence was reasonably capable of belief by the triers of fact on key points relating to self-defence and would have admitted the fresh evidence and would have ordered a new trial.”

Criminal Law: Sexual Assault
R. v. Case, 2024 ONCA 900; 2026 SCC 6 (41610) Judgment rendered Feb. 19, 2026 (Mar. 12, 2026)

The Chief Justice: “We are all of the view to dismiss the appeal, substantially for the reasons of the majority at the Ontario Court of Appeal.”

Leaves to Appeal Granted

Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41859) Mar. 19, 2026

Reviewing subordinate legislation and subdelegated Cabinet authority.

Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Doherty, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41860) Mar. 19, 2026

Reviewing subordinate legislation and subdelegated Cabinet authority.

Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Eichenberg, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41861) Mar. 19, 2026

Reviewing subordinate legislation and subdelegated Cabinet authority.

Administrative Law/Charter: Firearms; Subordinate Legislation
Generoux, et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2025 FCA 82 (41858) Mar. 19, 2026

Reviewing subordinate legislation and subdelegated Cabinet authority.

Bankruptcy & Insolvency: Preferences
American Pacific Corporation v. RPG Receivables Purchase Group Inc., 2025 ONCA 371 (41937) Mar. 26, 2026

Issues re preferential pre-bankruptcy transactions.

Class Actions: Motor Vehicles
North, et al. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, et al., 2025 ONCA 340 (41913) Apr. 2, 2026

Certification of class action for negligence in defective products.

Torts: Sexual Abuse; Vicarious Liability
H.N. v. Board of Education of School District No. 61 (Greater Victoria), et al., 2025 BCCA 144 (41910) Mar. 12, 2026

Vicarious liability in sexual abuse context.