Canadian legal blogs recently highlighted deepfake non-consensual intimate images (DNCII) and inmate discipline, among other pressing issues.
Intimate image abuse in Alberta
A Calgary teen was charged in December 2025 for creating DNCII of students from several schools, and two Edmonton boys were charged six months later after creating and sharing DNCII of classmates. The blog notes that one in ten American teenagers personally knows someone who has had DNCII created, and 6% reported being victimized by DNCII (Thorn, Deepfake Nudes & Young People: Handling a New Frontier in Technology-Facilitated Nonconsensual Sexual Abuse and Exploitation (Thorn: 2025) at 14). Reported consequences include job loss, school expulsion, post-traumatic stress disorder, and, in some cases, death by suicide (Mary Anne Franks, “‘Revenge Porn’ Reform: A View from the Front Lines” (2017) 69:5 Florida L Rev 1251 at 1259, 1263). The article argues that recent incidents demonstrate why intimate image legislation must address DNCII and its online distribution.
Related: Unplanned Learning Opportunities Boost Student Growth
Legislators face a difficult task when crafting these laws. The technology evolves rapidly, often outpacing the legal frameworks designed to catch up. It is similar to the early days of the internet, where laws were written to address dial-up modems and email spam, struggling to define terms like “cyberbullying” or “digital harassment” in a way that fits modern social media realities.
School placement after separation
Choosing a school is an important decision that can shape a child’s educational experience and development. After separation or divorce, however, that decision can become more complicated and emotionally charged. Parents may disagree about location, religious studies, private versus public, or specialized programs. When an agreement is not possible, parents are often left wondering how these decisions will be made.
Correctional institutions and the reasonable doubt standard
In John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v Saskatchewan, 2025 SCC 6 [John Howard Society], the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) expanded the meaning of “imprisonment” under the “true penal consequence” test to include inmate disciplinary offences governed by Saskatchewan’s Correctional Services Regulations [Regulations]. The Court found that s. 68 of the Regulations, which governs the standard of proof for finding an inmate responsible for a disciplinary offence, was inconsistent with ss.7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter], because it required proof on a balance of probabilities. The decision clarifies the standard of proof required for disciplinary hearings.
Related: From Ballroom to Birmingham: Lab-Grown Diamonds Take Center Stage in Bridal Jewelry
Ademption in wills
Continuing a prior theme of Will beneficiaries receiving nothing, the blog turns to ademption. Ademption arises where a testator makes a specific gift in a will, but the subject matter of that gift no longer exists in the estate at the time of death. In such circumstances, the gift usually fails entirely, and the intended beneficiary takes nothing. That outcome can be surprising and deeply disappointing for beneficiaries, particularly where the disappearance of the asset was unintended or occurred shortly before death.
OSC enforcement proceedings
In Oasis, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) alleged that Oasis World Trading Inc., a proprietary day trading firm with more than 600 traders located in China, engaged in spoofing and wash trading on Canadian and Australian markets from 2018 through 2020, traded without registration, lacked adequate systems of control and supervision, and improperly provided direct electronic access (DEA) to unauthorized persons. The case involves the definition of the public interest power and its application in enforcement proceedings.
