Explore famous Canadian court cases that shaped the country’s justice system. Learn key legal precedents and their impact on every Canadian
The most famous Canadian court cases have left a lasting mark as some of the most powerful precedents in the country’s history. Whether for good or for bad, from groundbreaking decisions to high-profile trials, these past decisions continue to affect the present day lives of every Canadian.
In this article, we’ll discuss some of these landmark decisions, what they’re about, and how they broke those grounds on the existing laws of that time.
Cases decided by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) become the talk of — not just the town — but of the whole country, mainly because of how controversial they are. Also called landmark cases, these famous Canadian court cases continue to stir conversation today among law students, legal professionals, and even the public.
Mostly, the bar on what it takes be a famous landmark case can be because:
Here are some of the most famous Canadian court cases by the SCC throughout the years:
We’ll discuss each of these cases below; you can also use the table of contents above to skip to any of these cases.
Are women included to what the law considers as a “person”? This was the pivotal question that was resolved in what is now called the Persons Case back in 1929.
Although women may already have the right to vote at the time of this case, the Senate was still closed to women because of how the British North America Act (BNA) was interpreted. Now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, Section 24 of the BNA provides that only “qualified persons,” which excludes women, are allowed to be appointed to the Senate.
This was challenged by a group of women before the SCC, including Emily Murphy, one of the first woman judge in Canada. Since the SCC ruled against them, they appealed the case before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England.
Victory was had before the Privy Council. It reversed the SCC’s ruling and held that the word “persons” in BNA’s Section 24 include women, making them eligible to be appointed in the Senate.
Check out this video to learn more about these five women, including Emily Murphy:
Head over to our Rankings page for a list of our Special Reports that rank lawyers across Canada in every legal practice area or region.
Requesting the patriation — that is, to take back the Canadian Constitution from Britain — and eventually amending it, has been the federal government’s long plan. However, the question is how much of the provinces should consent to it?
After three references, the case was appealed before the SCC, which held that:
the federal government can unilaterally (without the consent of the provinces) request that the British Parliament amend the Canadian Constitution; but
there must be a substantial consent from the provinces, to prevent any breach of constitutional convention, before the Canadian Constitution can be amended
The 1973 Calder case would be the first among many cases that recognized the concept of Aboriginal titles to Canadian lands. The Court said that these titles existed before these lands were colonized and are not merely granted by any law.
This case sprung up when Frank Arthur Calder and the Nisga'a Nation Tribal Council filed a case against the government of BC. They asked that Aboriginal titles in certain lands in the northwestern part of the province be declared to have never been lawfully extinguished.
While the lower courts ruled against the petitioners, the SCC made a bittersweet decision. It recognized that Aboriginal titles do exist. However, it also dismissed the appeal because of a split decision based on technicality.
Still, this recognition of Aboriginal titles is a great win, not just for the Nisga'a, because of the future legal impact that this case has.
Still within the realm of constitutional law, the Big M Drug Mart case in 1985 touches on the freedom of religion under the Charter. The statute called the Lord's Day Act was questioned in this famous Canadian court case.
This law was challenged by Big M Drug Mart when it was accused of selling its merchandise on a Sunday, which is a violation of the Act. Ruling in favor of Big M, the SCC held that the Act was invalid because, among others:
As such, the Lord's Day Act violated Section 2 of the Charter, which assures that freedom of conscience and religion is among the fundamental rights of every Canadian. It’s also in this case where the Court laid down the test of constitutionality of a statute, namely, the purpose test, along with the effects test.
Abortion is one of the most divisive topics of the 20th century, even until today. But for Canada at least, the law on abortion has long been settled in the 1988 case of Morgentaler. For being violative of Section 7 of the Charter, the Criminal Code’s Section 251, which prohibits abortion, has been held unconstitutional by the SCC.
This decriminalization of abortion acquitted Morgentaler, along with his two other co-accused. The Court held that the prohibition on abortion constitutes a breach of security of a person because:
first, it’s an interference of a woman’s security, who is forced to carry a foetus to a certain term before she is allowed for an abortion
second, it’s a breach of a person’s right to security, because of Section 251’s mandatory procedures that causes a delay in obtaining a safe therapeutic abortion
Another famous Canadian court case that involved the Criminal Code is the Zundel case. What was struck down as unconstitutional is the Code’s prohibition of publication of false news under Section 181.
The SCC held that this Section is a violation of the Charter’s right to freedom of expression and free speech. Therefore, the rule is that all communications are protected under the Charter, except for those that are stained by violence.
While Zundel’s views and opinions were admittedly from the minority and are unpopular in nature, it was ruled that they're still protected by the Charter, nevertheless.
The famous 1998 Canadian court case of Vriend laid down one of the first protections for the members of the 2SLGBTQI+ community in Canada.
As a background, Alberta’s Individual's Rights Protection Act does not include sexual orientation as an illegal ground of discrimination. The SCC ruled that this violates Section 15(1) of the Charter, which protects every person’s right to equal protection of the laws.
This interview with Vriend himself talks about how he was fired from his teaching job, which eventually lead to one of Canada’s most famous court cases:
Subscribe to CL Talk, our official legal podcast where you can listen to discussions about some of the most recent and important SCC rulings.
At some point in Canada’s history are the attempts of certain provinces, such as Quebec, from breaking away. Easily one of the most famous Canadian court cases, the Reference case is another 1998 decision that came after the 1995 Quebec referendum.
As ruled by the SCC, Quebec cannot decide on its own (or any province for that matter) from seceding from Canada. The Court reasoned that it would be a violation of both the Constitution and international law. However, the Court is quick to add that secession may be possible through a constitutional amendment, plus some other legal requirements.
In the field of medical law, assisted dying is another contentious area, for which the SCC took a stand in its 2015 decision of Carter. Before, the existing laws were Criminal Code’s prohibitions on assisting suicide and its provision, which stated that no person may consent to death being inflicted on them.
Thus, in Carter, the Court ruled that these provisions have limited the persons’ rights to life, liberty, and security, which are all protected by the Charter. Eventually, starting in 2016, the law-making bodies have consistently passed, reviewed, and amended the country’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) law.
Of course, this list would not be complete without our honourable mentions of some of the more recent, but still famous, Canadian court cases:
R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456: another important decision when it comes to the rights of the Indigenous peoples, upholding the Indigenous treaty rights (i.e. treaty right to fish between the Mi'kmaq and Britain), but subjecting them to valid regulations, such as on conservation
Euro‑Excellence Inc. v. Kraft Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 37: one of the famous cases in the field of intellectual property (IP) law, this case elaborates on the federal Copyright Act and IP infringement as it decided on Kraft’s allegations of copyright infringement against Euro-Excellence
Keays v. Honda Canada Inc., 2008 SCC 39: a landmark case on labour and employment law, the Keays case affected what is called the Wallace damages of Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd., [1997] 3 SCR 701, when the Keays court established certain rules on awarding damages in case of wrongful dismissals and how reasonable notice should be given by employers in such instances
A.I. Enterprises Ltd. v. Bram Enterprises Ltd., 2014 SCC 12: the precedent on economic tort of unlawful means, the SCC in this case decided on the dispute between the parties by defining what constitutes “unlawful means,” how defendants in such cases become liable, among other standards
Bank of Montreal v. Marcotte, 2014 SCC 55: along with two other cases, this case is vital to the practice areas of consumer protection and class action suits, where the SCC clarified on the doctrines of interjurisdictional immunity and paramountcy; this is also a famous case for financial institutions, especially banks
Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje, 2015 SCC 42: accountability of corporations in view of global environmental protection laws is the core of this case, where winning Ecuadorian plaintiffs sought the SCC’s help for the recognition of its judgment against Chevron
Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller, 2020 SCC 16: another labour case that also involved contract law, this case affected how employers should use arbitration clauses in employment contracts, especially those who are in the ‘gig economy’
Whether applauded or booed, the most famous Canadian court cases are testament of the evolving legal system of the country. It also shows how the courts, specifically the SCC, wields great power in shaping the trajectory of Canada’s laws. As such, legal practitioners and the public should always be vigilant when cases reach and are decided by the Court.
Bookmark our Legal Education page for more articles on famous Canadian court cases of the past and today.
