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 Andrew Lvov on Unsplash.
🕊️ On Friday, April 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Deborah Carol Riddle v. ivari. At issue is what it takes, under Quebec civil law, to undo a declaratory judgment of death: is proof that the missing person was alive abroad enough, and must the annulment application be served on the person said to have “returned”?
🎯 On March 20, 2026, the SCC released its decision in R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8. In a 5-4 decision, the Court allowed the appeal. The majority held that police had an implied licence to step onto Singer’s driveway and knock on the truck window, but that opening the truck door was an unreasonable search under s. 8. Even so, the evidence was not excluded under s. 24(2), and the matter was sent back to the Court of Appeal to address the unresolved fair-trial issue.
🤖 59% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result. The SCCbot got it right, but for the wrong reasons.
🔮 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: When Does a Missing Person “Return” in Law?
Appeal by leave from Re Imanpoorsaid, 2023 QCCA 1111
What Happened?
In 2008, Deborah Riddle’s spouse, Hooshang Imanpoorsaid, disappeared after saying he was travelling to Toronto. The next day, he emailed family members saying he was okay, but he never returned to Montreal. Police later determined that he had, in fact, flown to Amsterdam. The family then discovered major debts, forged signatures, and professional discipline issues, all of which suggested he may have fled creditors rather than died.
In 2017, after years without news, the Superior Court declared H.I. dead as of February 20, 2015. But the insurer ivari later obtained Iranian records that, on its view, showed H.I. was alive in Iran: a national ID card delivery, passport records showing repeated international travel, and proof of enrollment in a welfare program. ivari applied to annul the declaration of death, without serving H.I. directly. The Superior Court annulled the death judgment, and the Quebec Court of Appeal largely upheld that result, varying only the expert-fees ruling.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: Riddle argues that “return” under arts. 97-98 C.C.Q. requires proof that the person declared dead is currently alive, to the exclusion of other hypotheses, not just evidence suggesting “probable life.” On her account, anything less throws the family and the civil-status regime back into uncertainty. She also says that where a third party seeks to annul a declaration of death, the application must be served on the person alleged to have returned. Without service, she argues, the court cannot be confident that the right person has been identified or that basic procedural fairness has been respected.
Respondent: ivari argues that “return” should be interpreted broadly. In its view, the Civil Code permits annulment not only where the person physically comes home, but also where reliable proof shows the person is alive elsewhere. It says the Iranian official records and photographs are strong and convincing evidence that H.I. is alive in Iran, and that insisting on service here would produce an absurd result because the lack of service caused no prejudice and would only restart litigation that has already been running for years.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
If the Court sides with ivari, it will confirm a broad and functional understanding of “return” and flexibility as to requirements of proof. If it sides with Riddle, expect the Court to demand tighter proof and stricter service requirements before a declaration of death can be undone, emphasizing certainty. I’m leaning toward appeal dismissed. I expect the Court to be troubled by the idea of leaving a legally dead person on the books if the record strongly suggests he is alive.
SCCbot
This season, we’re also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. The SCCbot is currently 5 for 6. For this week, the SCCbot is saying appeal dismissed. It reasons that the appeal largely asks the SCC to replace the Court of Appeal’s purposive reading of “retour” (allowing proof of continued life abroad) with a “current life/certainty” threshold and a categorical service rule. Given the strong deference to fact-bound findings that the Iranian state records and photo-comparison make H.I. almost certainly alive and the Court of Appeal’s no-prejudice/proportionality rationale on service, reversal is an uphill climb.
Previous Case Recap: R. v. Singer
R. v. Singer, 2026 SCC 8
Held (5:4): Appeal allowed. Police had an implied licence to enter the driveway and knock on the truck window, but opening the truck door was an unreasonable search. However, it was an appropriate case to admit the evidence under s. 24(2). The case was remitted to the Court of Appeal to decide the outstanding fair-trial issue.
Key points:
- The majority said approaching the truck and knocking fell within the common-law implied licence to communicate with an occupant.
- Opening the truck door went beyond that licence and breached s. 8 because the Crown failed to establish the required justification for the search on the record.
- Even so, the majority held the breach was not serious enough, and the privacy impact not strong enough, to justify exclusion given society’s interest in adjudicating the case on the merits.
📊 59% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly! SCCbot also got the disposition right, but missed that the Court would find a Charter breach and still admit the evidence under s. 24(2).
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