This Week at the SCC: End of Season Recap

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 Fauzan Saari on Unsplash.

🏁 The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Quebec (Attorney General) v. Denis, 2026 SCC 25 marks the end of season 14. It ran from January to July and had us make predictions for 17 appeals—five more than last season.

🔎 Let’s take a closer look at the appeals we predicted:

• Eight appeals were allowed, while nine were dismissed.
• Four appeals were unanimous in result. Thirteen appeals had dissents.
• Four appeals included separate concurring reasons.
• Four appeals were 6:3 splits (Anglin, Société de l’Acadie, Jacques-Taylor and Ahluwalia).
• Three appeals were 8:1 splits (Saddleback, Alford and Kanyinda).
• Two appeals were 7:2 splits (Fox and Denis).
• Two appeals were 5:3:1 splits (Singer and Canadian Civil Liberties Association).
• All justices were in dissent at least once. Justice Karakatsanis was in dissent in seven of the 17 appeals, while Justice Côté was in dissent in six.
• Justice Kasirer was on the winning side in 16 of the 17 appeals. Chief Justice Wagner was on the winning side in 15 and authored four sets of reasons for the majority.

🔮 In terms of predictions, players were correct on average 62% of the time, up from 55% last season. 88% correctly predicted Emond, which was the highest of the season. McKee and Riddle were close behind, with 87% correctly predicting each.

For the remaining appeals, the toughest were:

• In Anglin and Kanyinda, only 23% got it right. Anglin was a 6:3 decision, while Kanyinda was an 8:1 decision.
• The next most difficult was Ahluwalia. It was a 6:3 split that only 28% got right.

🏆 A familiar name tops this season’s standings: Adil Abdulla finished in first place after correctly predicting 10 appeals in a row. Daniel Jackman was in second place with a streak of eight. We had a five-way tie for third. Bob Wyatt, Leslie A Beck, Alexis Hunt, Léo Fugazza and Claire Guatto each correctly predicted six appeals in a row. This was a strong showing over a longer season.

Thank you again for playing. The next season should kick off in September, when the SCC resumes releasing decisions after the summer. We’ll reset the streaks and start fresh.

SCCbot

The SCCbot finished the season getting 11 out of 17 (about 65%) predictions correct. Its best streak was 6, so it would have joined the folks tying for third. Here’s its self-evaluation: “Well above a coin flip. That’s a good sign that an AI can weigh the same materials a lawyer would: factums, lower court rulings, and who’s on the bench. But the misses don’t fit a tidy story — some came on close 6–3 benches, others on lopsided 8–1 and 7–2 decisions the bot got flatly wrong. With only 17 cases, it’s hard to say yet where its real blind spots are.”

Previous Case Recap: Quebec (Attorney General) v. Denis

Quebec (Attorney General) v. Denis, 2026 SCC 25
Held (7:2): Appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal’s declaration that the six-month mandatory minimum sentence in s. 286.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code is invalid is set aside. The mandatory minimum does not infringe s. 12 of the Charter.

Key points:

• The majority reaffirmed that courts assessing a mandatory minimum must first identify a fit sentence and then decide whether the statutory minimum is grossly disproportionate.
• It accepted the hypothetical involving an 18-year-old first offender but removed details, including his romantic feelings, that were irrelevant to sentencing.
• The majority held that obtaining or seeking sexual services from a child for consideration is inherently exploitative and always involves serious moral blameworthiness.
• It found that five months’ imprisonment would be fit in the hypothetical case, so the additional month required by the minimum did not meet the demanding threshold for cruel and unusual punishment.
• The dissent concluded that a six-month conditional sentence would be fit for a youthful first offender who withdrew before the meeting and that six months in jail would therefore be grossly disproportionate.

📊 Only 34% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly. The SCCbot got it wrong.

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