Editorâs 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 Mike Grant on Unsplash.
đŸ On Friday, November 6, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in Attorney General of QuĂ©bec v. SGS Canada inc. At issue is whether grain inspectors working at federally regulated grain terminals fall under federal or provincial labour law, even though their employer neither owns nor operates the terminals.
đŻ On October 30, 2026, the SCC released its decision in R. v. Moshfeghi Zadeh, 2026 SCC 35. In a 5:4 decision, the Court allowed the Crownâs appeal and ordered a new trial on dangerous-driving charges, confirming that even a momentary lapse of attention can meet the criminal fault threshold.
đ€ 81% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result. SCCbot got it right.
đź Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this weekâs decision. Scroll down for details on this weekâs case and a recap of the last decision predicted.
Case to Predict: Who Regulates Grain Inspectors?
Appeal by leave from Procureur général du Québec c. SGS Canada inc., 2024 QCCA 460
SCC webcast đ„ | factums đ
What Happened?
SGS provides grain inspection at terminals along the St. Lawrence River. In 2019, a CSN-affiliated union applied to Quebecâs Administrative Labour Tribunal to represent SGSâs inspectors and grain graders. SGS challenged the tribunalâs jurisdiction, arguing that the workers belonged under the federal labour regime.
Parliament has declared the grain elevators at issue to be works for the general advantage of Canada under the Canada Grain Act. The tribunal found that SGSâs workers fell under derivative federal jurisdiction and refused the provincial certification application. The Superior Court upheld the result based on SGSâs integration with Viterra, the Montreal terminal operator. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Quebecâs appeal, finding direct federal jurisdiction and, alternatively, derivative federal jurisdiction. Quebec appealed to the SCC.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: Quebec argues that labour relations are presumptively provincial and that the Court of Appeal blurred two distinct exceptions. Direct federal jurisdiction over a declared work should apply to the enterprise operating that work, which SGS does not do. Derivative jurisdiction requires proof of functional integration with a federal enterprise. Quebec says that proof is missing because SGS serves several clients as an independent third party, and the evidence does not establish the required degree of integration with terminal operator Viterra. Quebec also says the courts below artificially split off SGSâs Montreal grain branch, when SGS is a single multi-sector inspection company. The union supports Quebecâs position.
Respondent: SGS argues that the analysis turns on what the workers actually do, rather than their employerâs corporate identity. Their inspection work is functionally necessary and essential to the grain terminalsâ operations, bringing them within direct federal jurisdiction. Alternatively, SGS says the evidence establishes sufficient integration for derivative jurisdiction, particularly at the Montreal terminal operated by Viterra. The Attorney General of Canada also urges a functional approach, warning against rigid rules based on corporate structure or percentages of work.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
SGS has won at every level, but I could see the SCC taking a different approach to finding federal jurisdiction. As a result, I’m leaning towards appeal dismissed, but for different reasons than at the Court of Appeal. Also note that Justice Martin, who retired on May 30, can only take part in judgments for six months after leaving the bench, so any appeal she heard has to be released by the end of November if she is to participate. The Court may want to get out decisions where she is the deciding vote. Last weekâs 5:4 decision in Moshfeghi Zadeh, with Justice Martin in the majority, is an example. She also sat on this appeal.
SCCbot
This season, weâre also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. This week, the SCCbot predicts the appeal will be dismissed (with ~65% confidence). It expects the Court to hold that SGSâs grain inspectors in Quebec ports fall under federal labour jurisdiction because their work is integral to the operation of grain elevators that Parliament has declared to be for the general advantage of Canada: grain does not load or move without their sampling and grading. But it expects the Court to get there through âderivativeâ jurisdiction, while rejecting or sidestepping the Quebec Court of Appealâs broader view that anyone doing essential work at a declared work falls directly under federal authority, possibly over a dissent defending provincial jurisdiction. SCCbot is now 3 for 6 in its predictions.
Previous Case Recap: R. v. Zadeh
R. v. Moshfeghi Zadeh, 2026 SCC 35
Held (5:4): Appeal allowed. Acquittals on charges of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm set aside and a new trial ordered.
The accused drove through a red light at a busy Vancouver intersection. The resulting collision caused another vehicle to strike a father and his 18-month-old daughter, severely injuring the father and killing the daughter. The dispute at trial concerned whether the accusedâs driving amounted to a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver.
Key points:
- A momentary lapse of attention can, on its own, amount to a marked departure. There is no categorical exemption for brief inattention.
- The analysis must consider all the circumstances. The duration of the lapse is a factor, alongside matters such as speed, location, road conditions and visible warnings.
- Justice OâBonsawinâs majority reasons held that the trial judgeâs focus on whether there was something more than momentary inattention distorted the analysis and materially affected the acquittals.
- Justice CÎté, joined by Chief Justice Wagner and Justices Karakatsanis and Kasirer, would have upheld the acquittals. They read the trial reasons as a whole and found a contextual analysis entitled to deference.
đ 81% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly and the SCCbot got it right.
Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked todayâs newsletter, weâd 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