Successful appeal from Nova Scotia CA – Involved two counts of sexual exploitation involving teenage complainants – Sexual exploitation occurred when there was sexual conduct within relationship of trust, authority, or dependency between adult and young person, or where adult took advantage of young person’s vulnerability – Primary issue here whether conduct sexual –  

D interested in magic and particularly attracted to sawing women in half – Crown argued D pretended to “saw” two complainants in half with cardboard saw for sexual purpose –Police also found USB stick in D’s home containing images of females, sometimes clothed sometimes undressed, in scenes involving being “sawn in half” - Crown said images showed sexual motive – 

Trial judge refused to admit USB images because risk of unfair prejudice greater than value – After reviewing remaining evidence, Crown had not proven activity sexual or relationship with one complainant exploitative – Acquitted D on two sexual exploitation charges – 

CA majority agreed with decision to exclude USB images and acquit because Crown did not otherwise prove conduct sexual – Crown appealed to SC – 

SC majority allowed appeal and ordered new trial. 

Unsuccessful appeal from Quebec CA – Concerned whether accused person could have judge review lawfulness of arrest by peace officer - Section 495(1) Criminal Code described cases where officer could arrest someone without warrant - Section 495(2) set conditions that limit this power, including on public interest grounds and risk person arrested will not attend court – Limits protected individuals from arbitrary detention, contrary to s 9 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms – When arrest did not meet these conditions, might be unlawful – 

C arrested without warrant several days after events that led to sexual assault charge – At police station, interrogated and made incriminating statement – Before trial C brought motion to exclude statement – Argued arrest without warrant did not meet s 495(2) Criminal Code requirements and violated right not to be arbitrarily detained –  

Trial judge refused to hold voir dire on arrest lawfulness and dismissed motion – Incriminating statement admitted into evidence, and C convicted – CA disagreed with trial judge - Said voir dire should have been held on this question, and it ordered new trial – Crown appealed to SC –  

SC unanimously dismissed appeal – Said refusal to hold voir dire error of law – Appeal dismissed.  

United Kingdom Supreme Court

Contract, interpretation 

Providence Building Services Ltd v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd [2025] UKSC 1 (15 January 2026)

Successful appeal from CA – Concerned interpretation of termination clause in construction contract - Contract in question incorporated JCT (Joint Contracts Tribunal) Design and Build Contract (2016 edition), standard form contract very widely used in construction industry - Wording of disputed termination clause remained unchanged in 2024 edition - Contract between Hexagon Housing Association Ltd (Employer) and Providence Building Services Ltd (Contractor) - Contractor agreed to construct several buildings in Purley, London, to Employer’s specification - Contract included payment timetable –

Dispute focused on two late payments by Employer – In December 2022, Employer paid Contractor 14 days late – In May 2023 Employer failed to pay on time for second time and Contractor, on next day, issued notice to terminate contract – 

Contractor said contract entitled them to terminate if Employer paid late twice (provided specified default notice had been served by Contractor in respect of first late payment, which was case here) – Employer said contract only entitled Contractor to terminate for second late payment if first late payment had not ultimately been made within 28 days of due date and here first late payment paid within 28 days – Put another way, Employer said Contractor must have had previously accrued right to terminate and here not so – 

First instance Judge ruled for Employer, but CA accepted Contractor’s interpretation saying Contractor entitled to terminate contract if Employer failed to pay it on time twice, even if first payment was paid within 28 days – Employer appealed to SC – 

SC unanimously allowed Employer’s appeal, saying Contractor not entitled to terminate – Said, among other things, would be extreme outcome, one might say sledgehammer to crack a nut, if Contractor entitled to terminate contract because received each of two payments a single day late – Would be less extreme if second delay entitled Contractor to terminate only where first late payment delayed beyond specified 28 days and particularly serious – Appeal allowed.