10 Landmark Decisions Every Ontario Client Should Know: Family Law and Criminal Defence Wins, From Ahluwalia to Jordan
Case law is where the law becomes real. These ten decisions, five in family law and five in criminal defence, show how courts protect children, survivors and people accused of crimes, and how a well-argued case can change the outcome.
Key takeaways
- Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence.
- Colucci and Michel v. Graydon made it much harder to escape unpaid or underpaid child support.
- R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 set hard time limits for criminal trials: 18 months in provincial court and 30 months in superior court.
- R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9 held a breath demand is invalid if police do not have a screening device on hand, outside unusual circumstances.
- R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 restored an acquittal based on self-defence.
The following summaries are written for clients, not law students. Each one explains what happened, what the court decided, and why it matters if you are facing a similar situation. Every decision links to its official source.
Family law: five decisions that protect children and survivors
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16 · Supreme Court of Canada
1. A new civil wrong of intimate partner violence
A wife sued her former husband for damages for years of abuse during their marriage. The trial judge recognized a new "tort of family violence" and awarded damages; the Court of Appeal for Ontario declined to create a new tort and reduced the award to $100,000 under existing torts. The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 6-3 decision, recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence and characterized the $100,000 as compensatory damages for that tort.
Why it matters: survivors can now claim damages for a pattern of abuse in an intimate relationship, alongside property, support and parenting claims in the family case.
Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24 · Supreme Court of Canada
2. Child support debt must be paid
A father who had made almost no voluntary payments for years asked the court to reduce roughly $170,000 in arrears. The Court refused, holding that enforcement of child support debt is the rule and rescission is a last resort.
Why it matters: recipients can rely on their orders; payors must act promptly and transparently if their circumstances change. See our guide to child support arrears.
Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24 · Supreme Court of Canada
3. Retroactive support after the child grows up
A mother sought retroactive child support after her daughter was no longer a dependant, because the father had underpaid while his income was higher than disclosed. The Supreme Court confirmed that retroactive child support can be ordered in these circumstances.
Why it matters: a payor cannot avoid underpaid support simply by waiting until the child is an adult.
Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22 · Supreme Court of Canada
4. Relocating with children
The trial judge allowed a mother to move with the children; the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court restored the trial decision and set out how courts weigh a proposed move, focused on the child's best interests rather than penalizing the parent who asks to relocate.
Why it matters: a well-prepared relocation plan, with a realistic schedule for the other parent, can succeed.
A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764 · Court of Appeal for Ontario
5. Courts can act decisively on parental alienation
The trial judge found that a mother had systematically poisoned her 14-year-old son's relationship with his father, and ordered an immediate reversal of custody to the father, with a time-limited suspension of contact with the mother, to be reviewed after six months with therapeutic support. The Court of Appeal upheld the order, even though the child, through the Office of the Children's Lawyer, opposed it.
Why it matters: a child's stated wishes are important but are not the end of the inquiry where those wishes are the product of alienation. Read more in our parental alienation guide.
Criminal defence: five decisions where the defence won
R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 · Supreme Court of Canada
6. Trials must happen within fixed time limits
Mr. Jordan waited more than four years for trial on drug charges. The Supreme Court stayed the charges and created presumptive ceilings: 18 months from charge to the end of trial in provincial court, and 30 months in superior court (or provincial court cases with a preliminary inquiry). Delay above the ceiling is presumptively unreasonable unless the Crown proves exceptional circumstances.
Why it matters: unreasonable delay can end a prosecution entirely. See court delays in Ontario.
R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9 · Supreme Court of Canada
7. No screening device, no valid breath demand
Police demanded a roadside breath sample but did not have an approved screening device with them and had to call for one. Mr. Breault refused and was charged. The Supreme Court unanimously held that, outside unusual circumstances, a demand made when the officer is not in a position to obtain the sample immediately is not a valid demand, so refusing it was not a crime.
Why it matters: in impaired driving and refusal cases, the timing and legality of every police step can decide the outcome.
R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25 · Supreme Court of Canada
8. Self-defence: an acquittal restored
Mr. Hodgson was acquitted at trial after a judge found he acted in self-defence when he applied a chokehold during a violent confrontation in which the other man died. The Nunavut Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal, holding that the trial judge made no error of law and reaffirming that the Crown may appeal an acquittal only on a question of law alone.
Why it matters: a careful self-defence record at trial is powerful, and an acquittal is hard for the Crown to overturn.
R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34 · Supreme Court of Canada
9. Unlawful detention, evidence excluded
Police entered a Toronto backyard without a warrant and questioned a group of young men. Mr. Le ran and was found with a firearm and drugs. The Supreme Court held he had been arbitrarily detained, excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, and entered acquittals, emphasizing the impact of such police conduct on racialized communities.
Why it matters: Charter breaches can lead to evidence being excluded, even in serious cases.
R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14 · Supreme Court of Canada
10. Breaching bail requires a guilty mind
Mr. Zora was convicted of breaching bail for failing to come to the door during curfew checks. The Supreme Court held that the offence requires subjective fault, meaning proof that the accused knowingly or recklessly breached the condition, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial under the correct test. The Court also warned against imposing unnecessary bail conditions.
Why it matters: accused people are often charged with breaches for honest mistakes. Zora gives a real defence and supports challenging unreasonable conditions.
What these cases have in common
In every one of these decisions, the result turned on evidence carefully gathered and arguments carefully preserved at the first level of court. Appeals rarely create new facts. Whether you are separating, owed support, or charged with an offence, the work done in the first weeks of a case often decides the outcome years later.
Frequently asked questions
Do these decisions apply in Ontario?
Yes. Supreme Court of Canada decisions bind every court in Canada, and Court of Appeal for Ontario decisions bind Ontario's trial courts.
Can I sue my former partner for abuse after Ahluwalia?
The Supreme Court recognized a tort of intimate partner violence, so a damages claim may be available alongside your family case. Limitation periods and the evidence available matter, so get advice early.
If my trial is past 18 months, will my charges be stayed?
Not automatically. Delay caused or waived by the defence is deducted, and the Crown can justify some delay with exceptional circumstances. A lawyer needs to calculate the delay carefully and bring a timely application.
Sources
- Supreme Court of Canada, Case in Brief: Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16
- Colucci v. Colucci, 2021 SCC 24
- Michel v. Graydon, 2020 SCC 24
- Barendregt v. Grebliunas, 2022 SCC 22
- A.M. v. C.H., 2019 ONCA 764
- R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27
- Supreme Court of Canada, Case in Brief: R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9
- Supreme Court of Canada, Case in Brief: R. v. Hodgson, 2024 SCC 25
- R. v. Le, 2019 SCC 34
- Supreme Court of Canada, Case in Brief: R. v. Zora, 2020 SCC 14
This article provides general information about Ontario and Canadian law as of the date above. It is not legal advice and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. Laws and court decisions change; speak with a lawyer about your specific circumstances.