Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)

Cold Ocean Salmon Inc. agreed to sell several trout farms to Nova Fish Farms Inc. under an agreement of purchase and sale. The trout farms were on property leased from the provincial government and were licensed and regulated by both federal and provincial governments. Therefore, sale of the farms was conditional on government approval. The agreement was signed in February 2020 and did not state a fixed or outside closing date. Instead, it provided that the closing would occur seven days following the completion of certain conditions precedent including receiving government approval. The agreement required each party to take the necessary steps to obtain government approval as promptly as practicable following signing and that the parties were to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain approval before closing. The agreement included a clause that stated that time shall be of the essence of the agreement.Neither party took any steps to effectuate the agreement until June 2021 when Nova Fish submitted transfer applications to the provincial government. The government approved the applications in October 2021. Nova Fish told Cold Ocean’s solicitor of the approval in December 2021 and that Nova Fish wanted to proceed to close the transaction. The parties had direct communications and communications through their lawyers on several occasions through the spring of 2022. In May 2022, Cold Ocean told Nova Fish that it did not intend to proceed with the transaction.Nova Fish sued Cold Ocean seeking specific performance of the agreement. Cold Ocean pleaded in defence that Nova Fish was in breach of the agreement because of its delay in obtaining government approval and that Cold Ocean was entitled to terminate the agreement because of that breach. At a summary trial, it was determined that Nova Fish breached the agreement because it did not act as promptly as practicable, or use reasonable commercial efforts to obtain government approval. The time is of the essence clause applied to the terms of the agreement and entitled Cold Ocean to terminate the agreement. Cold Ocean was not required to prompt Nova Fish to comply with the agreement and it did not waive the breaches by Nova Fish and it was not obliged to allow Nova Fish to cure its breaches. Nova Fish’s action for specific performance was dismissed.The Court of Appeal allowed Nova Fish’s appeal. The trial judge’s finding that Nova Fish breached the agreement was not disturbed, however, it was determined that the trial judge erred by finding that the time is of the essence clause applied to the obligations that Nova Fish breached and the trial judge erred in finding that Cold Ocean was entitled to terminate the agreement because of Nova Fish’s breach of those obligations. The Court of Appeal granted Nova Fish’s request for an order of specific performance.

Argued Date

2026-10-14

Keywords

Contracts — Interpretation — Time is of the essence — Whether the Court of Appeal erred in law by interpreting a time is of the essence clause as an extricable question of law, in isolation from the agreement as a whole, without regard to the factual matrix, and without considering the objective intentions of the parties — Whether, under the modern approach to contractual interpretation, a time is of the essence clause can apply to a contextual temporal obligation where the parties so intend.

Notes

(Newfoundland & Labrador) (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).

Applicants Durrell Diggs and Ryan Taylor Wilband were both inmates on remand at the Central Nova Scotia Correctional Facility. At the relevant time, the facility was suffering staffing shortages which resulted in rotational lockdowns of inmates. The applicants brought habeas corpus applications arguing that the rotational lockdowns unlawfully deprived them of their residual liberty.The application judge declared that the lockdowns were unlawful. The respondent Attorney General of Nova Scotia appealed. The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and set the declarations aside.

Argued Date

2026-10-13

Keywords

Courts – Jurisdiction – Prerogative writs – Habeas corpus – Correctional facility detainees challenging legality of rotational lockdowns imposed due to staff shortages – Application judge declaring lockdowns unlawful – Declarations set aside on appeal – Whether placement in solitary confinement as result of operational or policy decisions reviewable by way of habeas corpus

Notes

(Nova Scotia) (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).

The respondents, Mr. Gabriel-Liberty Wall and Mr. Gregory Westgarde, former members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, each submitted independent access requests pursuant to s. 23 of the Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c. 63 (PIPA) for the disclosure of their personal information held by the applicants Grand Forks Congregation Jehovah’s Witnesses and Coldstream Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses, their former Jehovah’s Witnesses’ congregations. Mr. Wall’s request was denied by the Grand Forks Congregation on the grounds that the records contained “privileged and confidential religious communications”. Similarly, Mr. Westgarde was initially informed by the Coldstream Congregation that no personal information was held, but the Congregation later acknowledged that while personal records did exist, they constituted confidential religious communications protected under the common law and the Charter. Dissatisfied with the responses received, the respondents requested that the British Columbia Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (“the Commissioner”) review the congregations’ decisions. The matter was referred to mediation by the Commissioner. After the failed mediation, the Commissioner assigned an adjudicator to conduct an inquiry under s. 50 of PIPA. Because of the constitutional issues raised, notice was also given to the respondent the Attorney General of British Columbia. Despite finding that the impugned provisions infringed the religious freedoms of applicants and congregational elders Mr. John Vabuolas and Mr. Paul Sidhu under s. 2(a) of the Charter, the adjudicator concluded that the infringement was justified under s. 1. The adjudicator accordingly ordered the Grand Forks and Coldstream Congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses to produce all records in their custody or control containing Mr. Wall and Mr. Westgarde’s personal information, for her review as the Commissioner’s delegate. The applicants filed a petition for judicial review of the adjudicator’s decision. The Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the petition for judicial review and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Argued Date

2026-10-09

Keywords

Charter of rights — Freedom of religion — Right to access personal information held by religious congregations — Power of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia under the Personal Information Protection Act to order the production of documents — When is private and confidential religious information subject to disclosure under Canadian secular law (e.g., the Personal Information Protection Act)? — Does the Personal Information and Protection Act of British Columbia empower the Privacy Commissioner to infringe s. 2(a) of the Charter? — Personal Information Protection Act, SBC 2003, c. 63, ss. 1 (“organization”), 3, 23(1)(a), 38(1)(b) and 52 — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 2(a).

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).

By Order in Council 210/2024, the Lieutenant Governor in Council referred the following questions to the Ontario Court of Appeal on February 2, 2024, pursuant to s. 8 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43:Would legal online gaming and sports betting remain lawful under the Criminal Code if its users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada as described in the attached Schedule? If not, to what extent?A majority of the Ontario Court of Appeal answered the first question in the affirmative: legal online gaming and sports betting would remain lawful under the Criminal Code if its users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada as described in the Schedule attached to the Order in Council (“Proposed Model”). This made it unnecessary to address the second reference question. The reference question turned on a statutory interpretation analysis of s. 207(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, which provides that notwithstanding any of the provisions of Part VII relating to gaming and betting, it is lawful for “the government of a province” to “conduct and manage a lottery scheme in that province”. In dissent, van Rensburg J.A. would have answered the first question in the negative. She agreed with the majority that the reference turned on the interpretation of s. 207(1)(a), but did not agree with the majority’s interpretation or analysis. In her opinion, legal online gaming and sports betting would not remain lawful under the Criminal Code if Ontario were to implement the Proposed Model. As for the second reference question, “If not, to what extent”, Ontario’s involvement in the international liquidity aspects of the Proposed Model would contravene the gaming prohibitions in the Criminal Code, and the exemption in s. 207(1)(a) would not apply.

Argued Date

2026-10-07

Keywords

Criminal law — Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code — Provinces — Gaming and betting — Lotteries — Would legal online gaming and sports betting remain lawful under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, if its users were permitted to participate in games and betting involving individuals outside of Canada as described in the attached Schedule? If not, to what extent?

Notes

(Ontario) (Civil) (As of Right)

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).

The respondent, Abdel Karim Chemlal, was convicted of three charges, namely possession and concealed carrying of a prohibited firearm and possession of crack. The weapon was discovered by a police officer because of an impromptu frisk search conducted while the respondent was waiting to be given a statement of offence under the Highway Safety Code, CQLR, c. C-24.2, for walking in the street and crossing at a place other than an intersection. The crack was discovered during the reception procedure at the operational centre after he was arrested for possession of a firearm. The respondent argued that the frisk search was unreasonable and that it made his arrest and the subsequent searches unlawful. He also complained about the delay between his arrest and the time at which he was given an opportunity to speak to counsel. At trial, he brought a motion for exclusion of evidence pursuant to ss. 7 to 9 and 10(a) and (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The judge dismissed the motion. He held that the frisk search was unreasonable and that the arrest and subsequent searches were therefore unreasonable as well. He did not accept the other alleged infringements. However, applying the analytical framework from R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, he declined to exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the searches. The respondent appealed the judgment of conviction. A majority of the Quebec Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and ordered that acquittals be entered. In the majority’s view, the respondent had not shown that the trial judge had made a reviewable error in finding that the right to counsel had not been infringed. With regard to the analysis of s. 24(2) of the Charter, the majority held that the trial judge had made several errors of law in analyzing the factual situation accepted by him. Bachand J.A., dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal. In his view, the trial judge had not made any reviewable error in determining that the admission of the seized evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute within the meaning of s. 24(2) of the Charter. The findings of fact made by the judge, like his assessment of the three Grant factors, were not subject to any appellate intervention.

Argued Date

2026-10-06

Keywords

Charter of Rights — Protection against unreasonable search or seizure — Arbitrary detention —Standard that applies to justify safety search — Exclusion of evidence — Whether peace officer who interacts lawfully with individual is authorized to search individual for safety purposes if officer has reasonable suspicion that individual possesses weapon — Whether peace officer had reasonable suspicion allowing him to conduct safety search of respondent — If search of respondent infringed Charter, whether trial judge made reviewable error in deciding to admit evidence under s. 24(2) of Charter — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9, 24(2).

Notes

(Quebec) (Criminal) (As of Right / 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).