Editor’s Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by Fabrizio Conti on Unsplash.
🏥 On Friday, December 5, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in R. v. B.F. The Court is looking at a tragic family insulin-overdose case and will clarify when a suicide pact defence should be available.
📉 Last week, the SCC released Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39 and ruled that an investor can sue when a public company fails to promptly disclose operational changes that may affect share price, and clarified the leave test for secondary-market securities claims.
🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision. Scroll down for details on this week’s case or a recap of last week’s judgment.
Case to Predict: R. v. B.F.
Appeal by leave from R. v. B.F., 2024 ONCA 511
📄 SCC factums and webcast 🎥
What Happened?
B.F., a nurse, was involved in family law litigation. A judge granted her ex supervised access to their 19-month-old child. Days later, a neighbour found B.F., her mother, and her child unconscious in B.F.’s bedroom. First responders discovered empty insulin pens. A handwritten note at the scene was treated as a suicide note. The child survived but suffered permanent damage. B.F. and her mother recovered.
B.F. was charged with two counts of attempted murder by administering a noxious substance (insulin) and two counts of aggravated assault. The jury convicted her of the attempted murder of both her mother and child, and of aggravated assault against her child. They acquitted her of aggravated assault against her mother.
B.F. appealed her conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal in relation to the attempted murder of her child was dismissed. The conviction appeal in relation to her mother was allowed and a new trial ordered. The Court of Appeal found the trial judge hadn’t properly explained the difference between attempted murder and aiding suicide which was relevant as it was possible that B.F.’s mother could have injected herself with insulin.
Both the Crown and B.F. sought and obtained leave to appeal to the SCC.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: The Crown argued the Court of Appeal erred on causation and that the accused’s acts only need to be a significant contributing cause of life-threatening harm. It does not matter who was holding the syringe at the final moment. The Crown says the existing culpable homicide framework already provides the answer.
Respondent: B.F. argued that the courts below collapsed attempted murder with aiding suicide and the two must be kept distinct. The jury charge did not fairly lay out the defence theory that her mother acted independently and misstated evidence about who procured the insulin pens.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
Before the Court are legal issues about where to draw the line between murder and assisted suicide. However, Justice Martin questioned whether there was an air of reality to the idea that B.F.’s mother was suicidal, which may give the Court a way out and result in them not actually deciding the larger legal issue. Not only is this case conceptually complicated, it is also challenging in terms of the cross-appeal, the impact of any error on the result, and what actually needs to be decided. For the purpose of predictions, we’ll only be focussed on the Crown’s appeal and not B.F.’s appeal.
Previous Case Recap: Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich
Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39
Held (8:1, Côté J. dissenting): Appeal dismissed. The investor’s secondary-market misrepresentation claim can proceed.
- “Material change” means an internal change in the issuer’s business, operations, or capital that is reasonably expected to significantly affect the share price, interpreted in a practical, fact-specific way.
- At the leave stage, an investor need only show a reasonable possibility of success supported by some credible evidence. It’s a screening test, not a mini-trial.
- The pit wall instability, rockslide, production cuts and revised mine plan could reasonably be seen as a material change requiring prompt disclosure, not something that could wait for a scheduled update.
- The dissent would have set a narrower threshold, warning that the majority’s approach risks over-disclosure and greater liability for issuers.
đź“Š 59% of Fantasy Courts players got it right.
Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked today’s newsletter, we’d love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts
-Tom Slade