Supreme Court of Canada Hearings (Floor Audio)

The appellant, Hannah Lafferty, was charged with dangerous driving causing death. On the date of the offence, Ms. Lafferty drove an individual she was dating to his ex-girlfriend’s apartment and waited in her truck while he went inside. Shortly after, the ex-girlfriend approached the truck, opened the driver’s door, and as Ms. Lafferty drove off, held onto the truck while Ms. Lafferty accelerated and swerved in an attempt to shake her off, during which the open door struck and killed a bystander. The trial judge found that both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence were established, concluded that the defence of self-defence failed on the first and third prongs of s. 34 of the Criminal Code, and accordingly convicted Ms. Lafferty. Ms. Lafferty appealed the conviction, but the majority of the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s analysis of self-defence. Justice Mossey, dissenting, would have allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories for a new trial, concluding that the trial judge interpreted the term “force” in s. 34(1)(a) too narrowly.

Argued Date

2026-11-10

Keywords

Criminal law — Defences — Self-defence — Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal for the Northwest Territories erred in law in holding that the trial judge did not err by assessing the evidence based on an unduly restrictive interpretation of the term “force” in s. 34(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Notes

(Northwest Territories) (Criminal) (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).

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

2026-11-09

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).

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 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).