Introduction

Trade wars, increasing polarization and a climate crisis: 2025 is already fraught with political, social, economic and environmental challenges testing our legal institutions. The answer to how Canadian courts will respond to some of these issues lies in the fundamental rules and principles found in the Constitution that define the powers of our institutions and government.

This article canvasses some of the most significant constitutional questions facing Canadian courts this year, from debates over the notwithstanding clause to landmark cases before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC).

Throughout the year, we will release further commentary on the cases and issues described below.

The notwithstanding clause and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter):

Two important cases are exploring the scope of Canadian federalism and judicial authority through the use of the notwithstanding clause and the Charter.

Secularism

In English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Québec et al, the SCC granted leave to appeal the constitutionality of Québec’s controversial secularism law.¹ The National Assembly of Québec passed the bill into law on June 16, 2019, and pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause, which gives provinces the power to override portions of the Charter for five-year periods.

Trans youth

In UR Pride Centre for Sexuality and Gender Diversity v. Government of Saskatchewan, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal will determine whether a court can declare that a law violates the Charter, despite the invocation of the notwithstanding clause. The law requires parental consent for children under 16 to change their names or pronouns at school.

The Supreme Court’s docket:

A review of successful leave applications² to the SCC from 2024 reveals several cases that might evolve constitutional jurisprudence this year.

Parliamentary immunity and national security

In Alford v. Canada (AG), the Court will consider the constitutionality of s. 12 of the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act to determine whether parliamentary privilege is entrenched in the Constitution or can be altered by ordinary legislation. The act expressly limits claims of parliamentary immunity in proceedings against Committee members for alleged improper disclosures.

Public health

Newfoundland and Labrador’s COVID-19 restrictions limited interprovincial travel during the pandemic. In CCLA v. Newfoundland and Labrador, the SCC will decide whether such measures violated mobility rights guaranteed under s. 6 of the Charter and, if so, whether the infringement was justified under s. 1. This case will likely inform future decisions balancing public health and individual freedoms.

Division of powers:

Provincial governments continue to advance legislation that challenges federal authority on matters such as natural resources, healthcare, trade and immigration.

Paramountcy in transport

In two Québec cases before the Supreme Court (Quebec Maritime Services Inc. v. AGC (Québec); Opsis Airport Services Inc. v. AGC (Québec)), the SCC will determine whether Québec’s Private Security Act applies to federally regulated industries. The appellants argue that the Act’s licensing requirements for private security agents conflict with federal jurisdiction over marine transportation and aviation.

Trade

The Constitution gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of trade and commerce. As Canada prepares to respond to US tariffs, uneven and uncoordinated responses from the federal and provincial governments may result in legal and political challenges.

Environment:

The Charter and climate change

In Mathur v. Ontario, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently remit a challenge to the constitutionality of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emission reduction target and plan under ss. 7 and 15 of the Charter. The case may determine whether governments must consider the Charter in their environmental policies. This case takes on added significance amid speculation about a potential rollback of the federal Carbon Tax by a newly elected government without an alternative plan to reduce emissions effectively.

Plastics and paramountcy

In Responsible Plastic Use Coalition v. Canada, The Federal Court of Appeal will release its decision on whether Parliament’s addition of plastic manufactured items to the list of toxic substances under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, was unconstitutional and outside its jurisdiction.

Conclusion

These constitutional questions of 2025 reflect Canada’s evolving societal values and legal challenges. From debates over parliamentary privilege to landmark environmental cases, the decisions rendered this year will shape the nation’s legal and political fabric for years to come. As we await these judgments, one thing remains certain: Canada’s constitutional framework continues to be a dynamic and contested terrain, mirroring the complexities of modern governance.

For more information on this topic, please reach out to the authors, Laurie Livingstone, Brandon Barnes Trickett, Mélanie Power and Tom Nichini.

1. Loi 21 “La laïcité de l'État” prohibits certain public workers, such as civil service workers and teachers, from wearing religious symbols while working. The law is seen to disproportionately affect religious minorities, such as Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs.↩
2. Only non-criminal applications were considered.↩