What Are the 150 Most Important Case Law Decisions Every Ontario Paralegal Should Know?

Bernard Aybout (Virii8)

3 weeks ago

If you’re studying for Ontario paralegal exams, this is basically your “legal greatest hits” playlist.

Understanding important Canadian case law precedents is crucial for legal success.

These important Canadian case law precedents will help you understand the legal framework.

These critical important Canadian case law precedents offer foundational knowledge.

Table of Contents

Toggle

16 Minutes Read

Constitutional, Charter, Indigenous Rights – important Canadian case law precedents

Exploring important Canadian case law precedents reveals the evolution of Canadian law.

1. R v Oakes (1986 SCC) — Creates the Oakes test for when government can justify Charter limits under s. 1.
2. R v Big M Drug Mart (1985 SCC) — Charter analysis emphasizes purpose + effect; major freedom of religion (s.2(a)) case.
3. Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998 SCC) — Defines Canada’s constitutional principles and the duty to negotiate if a clear referendum occurs.
4. Andrews v Law Society of BC (1989 SCC) — The starting point for equality rights (s.15) analysis.
5. Vriend v Alberta (1998 SCC) — Courts can “read in” protections to fix unconstitutional legislation.
6. R v Morgentaler (1988 SCC) — Strikes abortion law as violating security of the person (s.7).
7. R v Keegstra (1990 SCC) — Upholds hate-speech law; big balancing of expression (s.2(b)) vs harm under s.1.
8. Dagenais v CBC (1994 SCC) — Sets modern test for publication bans balancing fair trial vs free expression.
9. R v Grant (2009 SCC) — Modern framework for excluding evidence under s.24(2) (repute of justice system).
10. R v Sparrow (1990 SCC) — Core test for government infringement of Aboriginal rights (s.35).
11. Delgamuukw v British Columbia (1997 SCC) — Explains Aboriginal title (what it is and how it’s proven).

The decision in R v Sparrow is among the important Canadian case law precedents affecting Indigenous rights.

1. Tsilhqot’in Nation v British Columbia (2014 SCC) — First SCC declaration of Aboriginal title to a specific territory.
2. R v Gladue (1999 SCC) — Sentencing must consider Indigenous circumstances (s.718.2(e)).
3. R v Van der Peet (1996 SCC) — Defines what counts as an Aboriginal right (integral-to-culture test).
4. R v Jordan (2016 SCC) — Sets hard ceilings for trial delay (Charter s.11(b)).

Trial delay cases in Canada demonstrate the impact of important Canadian case law precedents.

Administrative / Public Law (Tribunals, Fairness, Review) – important Canadian case law precedents

Key important Canadian case law precedents are essential for understanding public law.

1. Roncarelli v Duplessis (1959 SCC) — Government discretion isn’t a free-for-all; rule of law case.
2. Nicholson v Haldimand-Norfolk (1979 SCC) — Expands procedural fairness beyond strict categories.
3. Baker v Canada (1999 SCC) — Big fairness case: factors for fairness + importance of reasons.
4. CUPE v New Brunswick Liquor (1979 SCC) — Establishes modern deference to expert tribunals.
5. Dunsmuir v New Brunswick (2008 SCC) — Reworked standards of review (historic stepping stone to Vavilov).

Understanding procedural fairness is enhanced by reviewing important Canadian case law precedents.

Canada v Vavilov (2019 SCC) — Today’s main standard: reasonableness is default + structured review.
Knight v Indian Head School Division (1990 SCC) — Confirms when the duty of fairness applies.

Civil Procedure + Statutory Interpretation – important Canadian case law precedents

Familiarity with important Canadian case law precedents aids in effective legal practice.

Hryniak v Mauldin (2014 SCC) — “Culture shift” toward summary judgment and access to justice.
Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes (1998 SCC) — Canada’s go-to modern statutory interpretation approach.
Hollick v Toronto (2001 SCC) — Key guide for class action certification (preferable procedure).
Hunt v Carey Canada (1990 SCC) — Motion to strike: claim must be “plain and obvious” to fail.
Housen v Nikolaisen (2002 SCC) — Sets appellate standards: palpable and overriding error for facts.
Reference re Residential Tenancies Act (Ontario) (1981 SCC) — Classic s.96 case limiting what tribunals can do.

Contracts / Commercial (Stuff you see constantly) – important Canadian case law precedents

Many important Canadian case law precedents shape commercial law today.

1. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) — The classic rule on remoteness of damages in contract.

Contractual obligations have been clarified by several important Canadian case law precedents.

1. R v Ron Engineering (1981 SCC) — Tendering law: Contract A/Contract B framework.
2. M.J.B. Enterprises v Defence Construction (1999 SCC) — Tendering: compliant bids and implied obligations.
3. Tercon Contractors v British Columbia (2010 SCC) — Major test for enforcing exclusion clauses.
4. Bhasin v Hrynew (2014 SCC) — Recognizes duty of honest performance (good faith baseline).

The duty of honest performance is established by important Canadian case law precedents.

1. Sattva Capital v Creston Moly (2014 SCC) — Contract interpretation is usually mixed fact and law.
2. Tilden Rent-A-Car v Clendenning (1978 ONCA) — Onerous terms need proper notice to bind consumers.
3. Douez v Facebook (2017 SCC) — Forum selection clauses can be refused for public policy/consumer reasons.
4. Uber Technologies v Heller (2020 SCC) — Unconscionable arbitration clause struck; huge for access to justice.

Access to justice issues are frequently illuminated by important Canadian case law precedents.

Hamilton v Open Window Bakery (2004 SCC) — Contract damages: punitive damages need an independent wrong.

Equity + Small Claims (your exact topic lane)

Important Canadian case law precedents define the parameters of equity in law.

1. Grover v Hodgins (2011 ONCA) — Small Claims can apply equity only if the remedy ends in money or personal property.
2. Pettkus v Becker (1980 SCC) — Landmark unjust enrichment and constructive trust case.

Unjust enrichment is a key topic in important Canadian case law precedents.

Kerr v Baranow (2011 SCC) — Modern unjust enrichment, joint family venture concept clarified.
Semelhago v Paramadevan (1996 SCC) — Specific performance for land isn’t automatic; damages often enough.

Torts, Defamation, Charter Damages

Torts often hinge on important Canadian case law precedents that establish duty of care.

1. Donoghue v Stevenson (1932 HL) — The foundational “neighbor principle” for negligence duty of care.

The negligence standard is often applied through important Canadian case law precedents.

Cooper v Hobart (2001 SCC) — Canada’s duty-of-care framework (Anns/Cooper approach).
Mustapha v Culligan (2008 SCC) — Limits psychiatric injury claims using foreseeability and serious harm.
Bazley v Curry (1999 SCC) — The modern Canadian test for vicarious liability.
Whiten v Pilot Insurance (2002 SCC) — Sets the tone for punitive damages in civil cases.
Hill v Hamilton-Wentworth Police (2007 SCC) — Recognizes tort of negligent investigation.
Grant v Torstar (2009 SCC) — Creates responsible communication defence in defamation (journalism/public interest).
Vancouver (City) v Ward (2010 SCC) — Framework for Charter damages (when money is an appropriate remedy).

51–65: Charter + constitutional “must-know” cases – important Canadian case law precedents

Important Canadian case law precedents have shaped personal liberties in Canada.

Understanding important Canadian case law precedents is vital for constitutional law studies.

1. Reference re Same-Sex Marriage (2004 SCC) — Confirms same-sex marriage is constitutionally valid; clarifies religious freedom protections.
2. Carter v Canada (2015 SCC) — Strikes blanket ban on assisted dying under s.7; leads to MAiD framework.
3. Canada (AG) v Bedford (2013 SCC) — Sex-work laws struck for s.7 harms; modern example of revisiting precedent.
4. R v Kapp (2008 SCC) — Equality analysis: distinction between discrimination and ameliorative programs.
5. Fraser v Canada (2020 SCC) — Big s.15 case on adverse-impact discrimination (workplace/job-sharing).

Discrimination law continues to evolve from important Canadian case law precedents.

1. R v Singh (2007 SCC) — Police “questioning after counsel” limits; strengthens right to silence / counsel protections.
2. R v Brydges (1990 SCC) — Duty to inform detainees of Legal Aid / duty counsel availability.
3. R v Collins (1987 SCC) — Early foundation of excluding evidence (later refined by Grant).
4. R v Stillman (1997 SCC) — Major pre-Grant exclusion framework (still important historically).
5. Reference re Residential Tenancies Act (1981 SCC) — Key s.96 limits on tribunal powers (admin law staple).
6. R v O’Connor (1995 SCC) — Third-party records production test (privacy vs full answer/defence).
7. R v Mills (1999 SCC) — Parliament can set rules for record production; balances privacy and defence rights.

Important Canadian case law precedents often guide law enforcement practices.

Doucet-Boudreau v Nova Scotia (2003 SCC) — Charter remedies can be creative and supervisory in rare cases.
Vancouver (City) v Ward (2010 SCC) — The go-to framework for Charter damages (money remedies).
Reference re Supreme Court Act (2014 SCC) — Protects Supreme Court composition; constitutional architecture case.

66–85: Criminal procedure, evidence, privacy, consent

There are many crucial important Canadian case law precedents that address privacy issues.

1. R v Stinchcombe (1991 SCC) — Crown disclosure is a cornerstone of a fair trial.

Understanding evidence law requires knowledge of important Canadian case law precedents.

1. R v Antic (2017 SCC) — Bail: least-restrictive release is the default; strong statement on restraint.
2. R v Myers (2019 SCC) — Bail review principles; pushes back on unnecessary pre-trial detention.
3. R v Zora (2020 SCC) — Breach of bail conditions requires subjective fault (not “oops, technical breach”).
4. R v Mann (2004 SCC) — Defines investigative detention + limits on “pat-downs.”
5. R v Golden (2001 SCC) — Strip searches require strict safeguards; privacy dignity protection.

Privacy rights are defined by important Canadian case law precedents in legal contexts.

1. R v Tessling (2004 SCC) — Privacy expectations with thermal imaging; early “tech search” reasoning.
2. R v Vu (2013 SCC) — Searching a computer needs specific authorization; computers aren’t just “containers.”
3. R v Fearon (2014 SCC) — Cellphone searches incident to arrest allowed only under strict conditions.
4. R v Spencer (2014 SCC) — ISP subscriber info can attract privacy; police often need lawful authority/warrant.
5. R v Khelawon (2006 SCC) — Modern reliability approach to hearsay.
6. R v Khan (1990 SCC) — Opens door to principled hearsay (especially child statements).

Hearsay rules are influenced by important Canadian case law precedents.

R v Starr (2000 SCC) — Tightens hearsay reliability; warns against sloppy “trust me bro” evidence.
R v Seaboyer (1991 SCC) — Rape-shield jurisprudence; relevance vs prejudice in sexual history evidence.
R v Ewanchuk (1999 SCC) — No “implied consent” myth; consent must be affirmative in law.
R v J.A. (2011 SCC) — Consent must be conscious and continuous; cannot be pre-given for unconsciousness.
R v Darrach (2000 SCC) — Upholds limits on sexual history evidence; protects trial fairness + complainant dignity.
R v Jordan (2016 SCC) — Trial delay ceilings and stay remedy (you already had this—still belongs in any top list).
R v Grant (2009 SCC) — Modern evidence exclusion test under s.24(2) (also already on your first 50).
R v Askov (1990 SCC) — The original “delay crisis” case that changed prosecution behavior for years.

Important Canadian case law precedents continue to inform legal strategies.

86–92: Torts (negligence, damages, mental injury)

Employment law is greatly influenced by important Canadian case law precedents.

Kamloops v Nielsen (1984 SCC) — Canadian adoption/shape of duty-of-care analysis (Anns-style).
Childs v Desormeaux (2006 SCC) — Social host liability: usually no duty unless special circumstances.
Saadati v Moorhead (2017 SCC) — Mental injury doesn’t require a DSM diagnosis; real harm is enough.
Rankin (Rankin’s Garage) v J.J. (2018 SCC) — Duty of care isn’t automatic, even if harm is foreseeable (limits liability).
Bazley v Curry (1999 SCC) — Modern vicarious liability test (enterprise risk rationale).
Whiten v Pilot Insurance (2002 SCC) — Punitive damages: exceptional, proportionate, and for truly blameworthy conduct.
Fidler v Sun Life (2006 SCC) — Mental distress damages can be available in contract/insurance when foreseeable.

93–98: Employment law “big exam energy”

Important Canadian case law precedents shape workplace relations and expectations.

Wallace v United Grain Growers (1997 SCC) — Employer bad faith in dismissal affects damages (foundation, later refined).
Honda Canada v Keays (2008 SCC) — Limits “Wallace damages”; punitive damages require an independent wrong.
Machtinger v HOJ Industries (1992 SCC) — Bad termination clauses can trigger common law notice.
Potter v New Brunswick Legal Aid (2015 SCC) — Constructive dismissal principles; employer suspensions scrutinized.
Matthews v Ocean Nutrition (2020 SCC) — Bonuses/comp can be owed through notice period depending on contract.
Waksdale v Swegon (2020 ONCA) — Termination provisions interpreted together; one illegal clause can sink the set.

99–100: Corporate / professional liability (super useful) – important Canadian case law precedents

Corporate liability has been shaped by important Canadian case law precedents over the years.

BCE Inc. v 1976 Debentureholders (2008 SCC) — Directors’ duties + oppression remedy: “reasonable expectations.”
Deloitte & Touche v Livent (2017 SCC) — Auditor negligence: liability tied to the purpose of the audit work.

Corporate governance issues are often resolved through important Canadian case law precedents.

1. Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda (2012) — Modern jurisdiction test (“real and substantial connection”) + the famous presumptive connecting factors.
2. Tolofson v. Jensen (1994) — Set the default choice-of-law rule in tort: usually apply the law of the place where the wrong happened (lex loci delicti).
3. Beals v. Saldanha (2003) — Big on enforcing foreign judgments in Canada; pushed a pro-enforcement, “order and fairness” approach.
4. Chevron Corp. v. Yaiguaje (2015) — You can sue in Ontario to recognize/enforce a foreign judgment even without a deeper connection (assets enforcement logic).
5. Haaretz.com v. Goldhar (2018) — Internet defamation + forum non conveniens: courts must realistically weigh fairness of where the case should be tried.
6. Grant Thornton LLP v. New Brunswick (2021) — Clarified discoverability for limitation periods (when the clock really starts ticking).
7. Pioneer Corp. v. Godfrey (2019) — Major Competition Act class action case (price-fixing ecosystem); clarified what certain purchasers can claim.
8. Atlantic Lottery Corp. v. Babstock (2020) — Slammed the door on “waiver of tort” as a standalone cause of action; tightened rules on disgorgement-style claims.
9. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto (1995) — Confirmed Canada’s tough defamation framework; Charter didn’t rewrite it overnight.

Defamation law relies heavily on important Canadian case law precedents.

1. Crookes v. Newton (2011) — A hyperlink isn’t automatically “publishing” defamation; huge for online speech and liability.
2. WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson (2008) — Strengthened the fair comment defence (opinion matters — if it’s grounded in facts).
3. Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31 (2008) — Wrongful dismissal mitigation: sometimes you may have to consider returning to work to reduce losses.
4. BG Checo International Ltd. v. BC Hydro (1993) — Contract + tort can overlap; plaintiffs may have options on how they sue.
5. White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. (2015) — Expert evidence: courts demand independence and impartiality, not “hired guns.”
6. Ocean Port Hotel Ltd. v. British Columbia (2001) — Tribunal independence is mostly what the statute says it is (not what we wish it were).

Important Canadian case law precedents continue to evolve with society’s needs.

1. RJR-MacDonald Inc. v. Canada (1994/1995) — The go-to test for injunctions/stays (serious issue, irreparable harm, balance of convenience).
2. Nevsun Resources Ltd. v. Araya (2020) — Opened the door to civil claims in Canada tied to serious human rights norms (corporate accountability debate).
3. Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melançon LLP v. Cassels Brock (2016) — Another jurisdiction conflicts case applying Van Breda logic to connected claims.

Important Canadian case law precedents influence how courts interpret jurisdiction.

1. Sinclair v. Venezia Turismo (2025) — Recent SCC treatment of jurisdiction analysis using Van Breda factors in travel/tourism-style cross-border facts.
2. R. v. McGregor (2023) — Criminal evidence reasoning that continues to cite foundational SCC doctrine; shows how precedent chains actually work.
3. Reference re Genetic Non-Discrimination Act (2020) — Federalism power fight: what Parliament can do under criminal law power vs provincial power.
4. Uber Technologies Inc. v. Heller (2020) — Landmark on unconscionability and arbitration clauses; reshaped gig-economy contract enforcement.
5. Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc. (2021) — High-stakes tax interpretation; shows how the SCC reads complex fiscal schemes.
6. Clements v. Clements (2012) — Tightened the causation toolbox: “but-for” is default; “material contribution” is rare.

Understanding causation requires analyzing important Canadian case law precedents.

Athey v. Leonati (1996) — Causation + damages: defendants pay for the harm they caused even if multiple factors contributed (“thin skull” logic in action).
Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke (2007) — Limited “material contribution” causation; courts can’t use it as a shortcut just because proof is hard.
Fullowka v. Pinkerton’s of Canada Ltd. (2010) — Duty of care analysis in dangerous environments; proximity + policy matter (not just sympathy).
Farber v. Royal Trust Co. (1997) — Classic constructive dismissal framework: big unilateral changes can equal termination.
Wilson v. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (2016) — For federally regulated workers, “unjust dismissal” isn’t just “notice and pay” — reinstatement-style thinking matters.
Moge v. Moge (1992) — Modern Canadian spousal support thinking: compensatory principles and economic disadvantage after marriage breakdown.
Miglin v. Miglin (2003) — How courts treat separation agreements: respect them, but not blindly.
D.B.S. v. S.R.G. (2006) — Test for retroactive child support (fairness factors and delay consequences).
Gordon v. Goertz (1996) — Still the relocation/mobility anchor: best interests of the child governs moves.
Katz Group Canada Inc. v. Ontario (2013) — Courts defer heavily when reviewing regulations (unless clearly unreasonable).
Catalyst Paper Corp. v. North Cowichan (2012) — Strong deference to municipal decisions; reasonableness is a wide lane.
Loyola High School v. Quebec (2015) — Religion + admin law: Charter values must be proportionately balanced in discretionary decisions.
R. v. Le (2019) — Detention + street checks: reality of police-citizen encounters matters; coercion can be subtle.
R. v. Marakah (2017) — Privacy in text messages: reasonable expectation of privacy can exist even after sending.
R. v. Reeves (2018) — Consent + computers: one occupant’s consent can’t automatically authorize police seizure of shared digital property.
R. v. Cole (2012) — Employees can have privacy in work computers; workplace ownership isn’t a magic override.
R. v. Kang-Brown (2008) — “Sniffer dog” searches: sets the bar for when investigative techniques become a search needing justification.
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2004) — The modern fair dealing foundation; user rights are real rights in copyright.
SOCAN v. Bell Canada (2012) — Short previews can be fair dealing; reinforced a consumer-friendly view of copyright exceptions.
Google Inc. v. Equustek Solutions Inc. (2017) — The internet injunction bombshell: Canadian courts can order global de-indexing in some cases.
Rogers Communications Inc. v. Voltage Pictures, LLC (2018) — “Notice-and-notice” regime limits: rights-holders can’t turn ISPs into a blank-cheque collection machine.
Newfoundland and Labrador v. AbitibiBowater Inc. (2012) — Environmental orders can be “claims” in insolvency, depending on the real substance.
Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. (2019) (Redwater) — Environmental duties don’t just vanish in bankruptcy; reshaped the insolvency/environment line.
Century Services Inc. v. Canada (2010) — Modern CCAA philosophy: restructuring is flexible, practical, and judge-managed.
Fraser River Pile & Dredge Ltd. v. Can-Dive (1999) — Expanded third-party benefit logic in some contracts (especially insurance-type situations).
London Drugs Ltd. v. Kuehne & Nagel (1992) — Contract limitation clauses can sometimes protect employees/agents too — commercial reality wins.