Canada: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Federal Court’s June 12, 2026 decision in Minister of National Revenue v KPMG Canada LLP, T-139-26, is a significant ruling on the limits of privilege assertions by third-party tax advisors in the context of CRA audits.

The Supreme Court of Canada has addressed the doctrine of spoliation for the first time in over a century, establishing a clear framework for cases involving intentional destruction of evidence.

After more than a century, the Supreme Court of Canada has revisited the evidentiary doctrine of spoliation and the available remedies in SS&C Technologies Canada Corporation v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, 2026 SCC 29 (SS&C). The Court described spoliation as “the intentional destruction, alteration, mutilation or concealment of evidence with a view to subverting the truth-finding process during litigation”.

Receiverships and bankruptcy proceedings often share objectives, including preserving value, centralizing control and maximizing recoveries, but involve different decision-makers and different statutory frameworks.

The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a landmark ruling establishing that the Constitution guarantees judicial review of all aspects of administrative decisions, both factual and legal. In Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court struck down a privative clause that attempted to limit judicial review, confirming that legislatures cannot constitutionally oust the courts' supervisory jurisdiction over administrative bodies. This decision fundamentally reshapes the landscape of administrative la

The Ontario Superior Court recently upheld an arbitration award despite finding the arbitrator committed an error of law, ruling that "final and binding" language in the parties' arbitration agreement precluded any right of appeal. This decision highlights the significant consequences contractual language about arbitration finality can have on a party's ability to challenge an unfavorable award, even when a court would otherwise agree with the unsuccessful party's position.

This comprehensive weekly summary analyzes five significant Ontario Court of Appeal decisions from August 10-14, 2026, covering constitutional challenges to bike lane removal legislation, limitation periods for third-party claims, class action settlement disclosure rules, constructive dismissal damages, and vexatious litigant declarations. Each case summary includes detailed analysis of legal principles, procedural issues, and practical implications for practitioners.

The Supreme Court of Canada has issued a landmark ruling establishing that the Constitution guarantees judicial review of all aspects of administrative decisions, both factual and legal. In Democracy Watch v. Canada (Attorney General), the Court struck down a privative clause that attempted to limit judicial review, confirming that legislatures cannot constitutionally oust the courts' supervisory jurisdiction over administrative bodies. This decision fundamentally reshapes the landscape of administrative la

The Federal Court of Appeal's decision in SOCAN v. Apple Canada addresses when courts will review administrative decisions before they become final. The ruling establishes that even significant legal determinations made during bifurcated proceedings remain interlocutory until the administrative body completes its entire process. What threshold must parties meet to justify immediate judicial review of preliminary rulings?

When can citizens sue government officials for abuse of power? A landmark Supreme Court case examines the boundaries between administrative law and civil litigation, revealing...

In January 2025, former Federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Mark Holland, released a Letter to provinces and territories on the importance of upholding the Canada Health Act – 2025. We wrote about it here.

In Sienna v. Duckett, 2025 ONCA 867, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs leave to amend their claim against the Attorney General of Canada relating...