Plain-language summaries of recent court decisions that touch the lives of Black communities in Canada. Every entry links to the full reasons for judgment so you can read for yourself.
Filters 
Mr. Bent is a permanent resident of Canada and a Jamaican citizen. After a criminal matter, the Canada Border Services Agency referred him to an inadmissibility hearing under section 36(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Immigration Division found him inadmissible.
Mr. Bent and the Black Legal Action Centre filed a joint application for judicial review. They argued that sections 36(1) and 44(2) of IRPA violate section 15 of the Charter because they fail to require decision-makers to consider the role of systemic anti-Black racism that often shapes a person’s contact with the criminal system before it shapes their immigration status.
The federal government brought a motion to strike BLAC as an applicant, arguing BLAC was not “directly affected” and could not name itself as a public interest applicant without first asking the Court’s permission.
On December 20, 2024, Justice Aylen of the Federal Court dismissed the government’s motion. She held that BLAC was entitled to assert public interest standing by naming itself in the notice of application. The question of whether BLAC ultimately has standing will be decided by the judge hearing the merits.
BLAC counsel: Prasanna Balasundaram, Nicole Guthrie. Mr. Bent represented by Andrew Brouwer (Refugee Law Office, Legal Aid Ontario).
Mr. Morris, a young Black man from Toronto, was convicted of possessing a loaded firearm. At sentencing, his lawyer filed a cultural assessment and expert evidence on anti-Black racism, poverty, and over-policing in his community.
The trial judge took these factors into account and imposed a 12-month sentence. The Crown appealed, arguing the sentence was too low.
The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the approach but adjusted the sentence to 15 months. More importantly, the Court set out three holdings that have shaped sentencing across the country.
First, judges may take judicial notice of anti-Black racism in Canada without requiring proof in every case. Second, an offender does not have to prove a direct causal link between systemic racism and the offence. Third, evidence of systemic racism goes to the offender’s moral culpability, not to the seriousness of the offence itself.
Mr. Dorsey is a federal inmate. He applied to Correctional Service Canada to be transferred from a medium-security to a minimum-security institution. CSC refused. He brought a habeas corpus application in provincial superior court, asking a judge to review whether his continued confinement at the higher security level was lawful.
The lower courts said habeas corpus was not available because Mr. Dorsey had no pre-existing right to be at minimum security. The Supreme Court of Canada disagreed.
By a 6–3 majority, Justice Moreau held that habeas corpus is available to challenge a CSC refusal to reclassify an inmate’s security level. The remedy does not require the prisoner to first prove an entitlement to a lower classification. What matters is whether the deprivation of residual liberty inside the prison is lawful.
Ms. Kanyinda is a refugee claimant from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. She applied for Quebec’s reduced-contribution daycare program so she could look for work and support her three children. The province refused, relying on section 3 of the Reduced Contribution Regulation, which excluded refugee claimants who did not yet hold a work permit.
Ms. Kanyinda challenged the rule under section 15 of the Charter. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed with her. On March 6, 2026, the Court found the regulation discriminated against refugee-claimant women on the combined grounds of sex and immigration status.
The Court applied an intersectional analysis: the rule did not affect all refugee claimants equally. It hit women hardest because women carry most of the unpaid childcare. The remedy expanded eligibility to include refugee claimants.
Mr. Burke-Whittaker, a young Black man, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded prohibited firearm. The sentencing judge gave him a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence served in the community, plus three years of probation. The Crown appealed, asking the appeal court to send him to prison instead.
The case reached the Supreme Court of Canada on the question of what should happen when a Crown sentence appeal succeeds: is reincarceration automatic, or does the court have discretion?
The Black Legal Action Centre intervened. BLAC argued that reincarcerating a person who has complied with their community sentence is never automatic. Courts must apply proportionality, restraint, and the sentencing principles in section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including the overrepresentation of Black people in custody and the impact of anti-Black racism.
BLAC counsel: Jean-Simon Schoenholz, Nadine Tawdy, Shanika Gordon, Demar Hewitt
A few things worth knowing before you dive into the cases.
Court decisions from across Canada that shape the law for Black communities. That includes cases dealing with anti-Black racism in bail, sentencing, prison conditions, immigration, refugee claims, child protection, Charter challenges, and more. We prioritize decisions that either set a precedent, name anti-Black racism directly, or affect how Black people move through the justice system in everyday ways.
Lawyers and legal researchers working with Black Legal Action Centre (BLAC). Every summary is reviewed for accuracy before it goes live. When a case is co-authored or reviewed by outside counsel, we credit them in the case comment section.
No. Everything on this page is legal information, not legal advice. Case summaries are meant to help you understand what a court decided and why. They are not a substitute for talking to a lawyer about your own situation. If you need advice on a case that affects you, contact a lawyer or a community legal clinic.
You can use them as a starting point for research. Every case card links to the full reasons for judgment, which is what you should cite. Do not cite the BJH summary in place of the actual decision. Lawyers, paralegals, and law students are responsible for verifying the current status of any case before relying on it in practice.
Reach out through the Contact page. We welcome tips from lawyers, advocates, and community members. If a case has been overturned, distinguished, or applied in a new way, let us know so we can update the summary.
Yes, please do. Everything on this page is free to read and share for educational and community use. If you’re reproducing a summary in a publication or training material, credit Black Justice Hub and link back to the original page. The full reasons for judgment are public court documents and can be cited directly.
