Top 10 Legal Cases All Canadian Law Students Should Know

R v Oakes [1986] 1 SCR 103
This foundational case established the Oakes test, a framework for determining whether a Charter right limitation under Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is justified. The Supreme Court held that any limit on a Charter right must pursue a pressing and substantial objective, and be proportional (i.e. minimally impairing the right and having benefits that outweigh the harms). This case is central to constitutional law and the protection of civil liberties.

R v Morgentaler [1988] 1 SCR 30
Dr Henry Morgentaler challenged Canada’s abortion law. The Supreme Court struck down the existing law as unconstitutional under Section 7 of the Charter (life, liberty, and security of the person), as it imposed significant barriers on women seeking abortions. The Court emphasized bodily autonomy and procedural fairness, making abortion effectively legal in Canada. This landmark ruling remains a cornerstone of reproductive rights and Charter-based liberty interests.

Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217
Following Quebec’s independence referendum, the Supreme Court ruled that unilateral secession by a province is not legal under Canadian or international law. However, a clear referendum result would impose a political obligation on other provinces and the federal government to negotiate. The Court identified four unwritten constitutional principles (federalism, democracy, the rule of law, and minority rights) that must guide such negotiations. The case defines Canada’s constitutional framework and intergovernmental relations.

R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295
Big M Drug Mart was charged under the federal Lord’s Day Act for opening on Sunday. The Supreme Court struck down the law as it violated freedom of religion under Section 2(a) of the Charter. The Court held that laws cannot impose religious practices on individuals. This case reinforced Charter protections against state-imposed religion and clarified that a law’s purpose, not just its effect, determines its constitutionality.

R v Stinchcombe [1991] 3 SCR 326
This case established the Crown’s duty to disclose all relevant evidence to the defence in criminal trials, even if it helps the accused. The Supreme Court ruled that full disclosure is a Charter right under Section 7, ensuring a fair trial. Disclosure must be timely and complete, subject only to privilege or irrelevance. Stinchcombe fundamentally shaped criminal procedure and trial fairness in Canadian law.

R v Jordan [2016] 1 SCR 631
The Supreme Court set new limits on unreasonable delay in criminal trials, ruling that charges must generally be resolved within 18 months in provincial courts and 30 months in superior courts. Delays beyond these limits are presumed unreasonable under Section 11(b) of the Charter, unless justified. This case reshaped the criminal justice system, encouraging timely prosecutions and preventing systemic delay from undermining rights and public confidence.

Reference re Same-Sex Marriage [2004] 3 SCR 698
In this reference case, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of same-sex marriage, ruling that it is consistent with the Charter’s equality rights (Section 15). The Court confirmed that Parliament has authority to legislate on marriage under Section 91(26) of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that recognising same-sex marriage promotes dignity and equality. This paved the way for civil marriage equality across Canada and reflected evolving social and legal values.

R v Sparrow [1990] 1 SCR 1075
This case involved a First Nations fishing rights claim. The Court ruled that Aboriginal rights, protected under Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, are not absolute but cannot be infringed without justification. It established the Sparrow test, assessing whether government action unduly infringes Indigenous rights and whether the infringement is justified. Sparrow is foundational for Aboriginal law and the reconciliation of Indigenous and Crown interests.

Vriend v Alberta [1998] 1 SCR 493
Delwin Vriend was fired from a religious college due to his sexual orientation, which was not protected under Alberta’s human rights legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that excluding sexual orientation violated the Charter’s Section 15 equality guarantee, and read in protection into the law. The case confirmed that Charter rights apply to omissions in legislation and advanced LGBTQ+ rights, reinforcing judicial authority to remedy discriminatory laws.

Hunter v Southam Inc [1984] 2 SCR 145
The Court struck down a law allowing government searches without a warrant, ruling it violated Section 8 of the Charter (protection against unreasonable search and seizure). The case established the reasonable expectation of privacy and that searches require judicial authorisation. This early Charter case shaped privacy rights and set the standard for interpreting fundamental freedoms in a free and democratic society.