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).
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.
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.
