Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has nominated the Honourable Mahmud Jamal as the next member of the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Justice Jamal was appointed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2019. Justice Jamal is fully bilingual and had a distinguished career as a litigator with a deep commitment to pro bono work prior to his appointment to the Court of Appeal. Justice Jamal has a background in civil, constitutional, criminal and regulatory law and he taught constitutional law at McGill University and administrative law at Osgoode Hall Law School. Justice Jamal will replace Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, currently the longest-serving Supreme Court justice, who will retire from the court on July 1, her 75th birthday.

SCC No. Case Name Province of Origin Keywords


Tiffany Jo Kreke v. Amro Abdullah M Alansari(Sask.)

Family law — Custody — Relocation — Spousal support

The parties separated after ten years of marriage. They had one child together and the applicant had two children from a previous marriage. The Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s decision that awarded joint custody of the one child, with primary care to the applicant and allowed her to relocate within the province with that child. It also reduced the amount of spousal support awarded to her. A new trial was ordered on the issues of custody, access, primary care and relocation.


B.J.T. v. J.D

- and -

Director of Child Protection for the Province of Prince Edward Island(P.E.I.)

Family law — Child protection — Custody

The father and mother were married in 2012 in Alberta and separated less than a year later when the mother returned to Prince Edward Island. The father was unaware that the mother was pregnant when she left. Shortly after the child was born, the applicant grandmother came to reside with the mother and child. When the child was four years of age, and residing only with his mother, he was apprehended by the Director of Child Protection. He was eventually placed in the care of the applicant. The Director subsequently alerted the father of the child’s existence then supported his contested application for permanent custody. The trial judge held that the child should be permanently placed with the grandmother in Prince Edward Island. On appeal, the majority held that the child should be permanently placed in his father’s custody in Alberta.


6075240 Canada Inc. v. Minister of National Revenue(F.C.)

Taxation — Income tax — Assessment

6075240 Canada Inc. (607) is a taxpayer that failed to file an income tax return for the 2010 and 2012 taxation years. The Minister of National Revenue therefore made an estimated assessment for those years. More than three years later, 607 tried to file income tax returns for the years in question. The Minister refused to process the returns on the basis that he could not make a reassessment after the “normal reassessment period” defined in the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.). 607 filed an application for judicial review with the Federal Court, which dismissed the application. The appeal from that decision was also dismissed.


Seattle Environmental Consulting Ltd., Mike Singh also known as Manoj Singh v. Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia(B.C.)

Civil procedure — Contempt of court — Injunctions

In 2012, the respondent, the Workers’ Compensation Board (“Board”) filed a petition, seeking an injunction restraining the applicants from contravening the Workers Compensation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 492, s. 198, and its regulations. When the petition came for hearing, the applicants sought an adjournment and consented to an interim injunction restraining their conduct until the petition was heard. The Board applied to have the applicants found in contempt of the interim injunction, which continued to apply. The Board also sought a permanent injunction to prevent the applicants from continuing in the industry, pursuant s. 198 of the Workers Compensation Act. The judge found the applicants guilty of seven counts of contempt for breaching the interim injunction and 21 distinct breaches of the Workers Compensation Act and its regulations. She granted an injunction prohibiting the applicants from carrying on in the asbestos abatement or inspection industry for an indefinite period or until further order of the court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal.


Ferdinando Polla v. Zvonimir Josipovic, Stephen P Kovacevic, Stanko Bingula, Anton Jurincic, Mato Menalo, Ante Mimica, Ignac Radencic, Joe Sertic, Retford & Bates LLP(Ont.)

The applicant commenced an action to recover his lost investment in the Croatian (Toronto) Credit Union Limited. The trial judge refused to grant the applicant leave to amend his statement of claim, on the basis that the amendment asserted a new claim for statutory misrepresentation that was statute-barred and, the respondents would be irreparably prejudiced if the amendment were permitted. The applicant’s action was dismissed. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.


Gilbert Paul Robinson v. Her Majesty the Queen(Alta.)

Criminal law — Evidence — Disclosure

The applicant was on trial for the murder of his estranged wife. The applicant applied for a mistrial based on the failure of the Crown to disclose documents to the defence of the Crown witnesses’ claims for restitution. The application for a mistrial was dismissed. After a trial by judge and jury, the applicant was convicted of second degree murder. The applicant’s appeal was dismissed.


Stevan Utah v. Attorney General of Canada, Darryl Zelisko(F.C.)

Limitation of actions — Summary judgments

In June 2018, the applicant, Mr. Utah, brought an action for damages in Federal Court, alleging that a federal government officer failed to process his 2007 request for refugee protection in a timely manner, causing him injury. The main cause of action he chose to pursue was abuse of public office or misfeasance in public office. The respondents, the Attorney General of Canada and the federal government officer, moved for summary dismissal on the ground that the limitation period expired before Mr. Utah started his action. The relevant limitation period is found in s. 3(1)(a) of Alberta’s Limitations Act, R.S.A., 2000, c. L‑12, which requires parties to launch an action within two years of when they know or ought to know injury caused by a defendant has been suffered and warrants bringing a proceeding. The Federal Court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, concluding that the materials filed suggested that Mr. Utah did not know that the immigration officer had not processed his 2007 refugee claim until he received a response to an access to information request, the same month that he filed his statement of claim. The Federal Court of Appeal allowed the respondents’ appeal and dismissed Mr. Utah’s action. It concluded that the limitation period started to run in January 2016, when Mr. Utah received a message from another immigration officer informing him that his 2007 application for refugee status was not put forward due to errors made by previous officers. His action was therefore not started within the two‑year limitation period.


Caliber Midstream GP LLC, Caliber Midstream Partners, L.P. v. Bidell Equipment LP(Alta.)


Bidell Equipment LP won a bid to manufacture compressor units for a natural gas processing plant owned and operated by Caliber Midstream GP LLC and Caliber Midstream Partners, L.P. It commenced work but the order was cancelled before the work was completed. Bidell Equipment LP commenced an action for unpaid amounts it claimed Caliber Midstream GP LLC and Caliber Midstream Partners, L.P. owed because they cancelled the contract and for storage fees, interest, and indemnity costs. The trial judge awarded $11,520,497.70. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.