Canada: Human Rights

The founders of the Drug User Liberation Front (DULF) have won a major constitutional challenge against the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which prohibited the implementation of their non-medicalized safer supply program in the context of the toxic drug crisis.

Dr. Sabra Desai examines the critical role schools play in child abuse prevention and supporting survivors, using Erin's Law as a guiding framework to explore trauma-informed education practices...

Drawing on decades of advocacy work, this session examines the systemic failures within Canada's child welfare system and their lasting impact on vulnerable children and families.

In Knauff v. Ontario (Human Rights Tribunal), 2026 ONCA 653, a five-judge panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario revisited the test governing motions for leave to appeal from decisions of the Divisional Court.

Bill S-2 remains before Parliament, creating a critical opportunity to examine what legal reform can achieve and what questions must be determined by First Nation governments and communities themselves. Through a relational ethics of care framework, this contribution to Yellowhead Institute's special report explores whether Indian Act amendments should be viewed solely as constitutional compliance or as part of a broader dialogue about relationships, responsibility, and belonging.

Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of September 14, 2026.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the “Tribunal”) recently reaffirmed the central importance of the duty to investigate in the workplace. In Dabbagui v. AV Terrace Bay, 2026 HRTO 784, the Tribunal found that an employer’s failure to meaningfully investigate allegations of workplace discrimination before terminating a probationary employee resulted in a breach of the Human Rights Code (the “Code”).

The Alberta Court of Appeal has reinforced the evidentiary requirements for Indigenous groups seeking standing before the Alberta Energy Regulator, clarifying that specific evidence demonstrating how a proposed approval could directly affect the exercise of Indigenous rights is essential. This decision addresses the intersection of regulatory standing requirements and Indigenous rights claims, while also examining the role of cumulative effects in establishing standing for regulatory appeals.

A BC Supreme Court decision has quashed a substantial start determination for a major mining project, finding the Crown failed to adequately consult an Indigenous nation after the Province's understanding of their territorial claim evolved. The ruling examines how changing circumstances can trigger fresh consultation obligations even after environmental certificates are issued, and what constitutes "substantial start" under BC's environmental assessment regime.