1. Facts - What happened in the case, as described by the Court? Give enough detail so that you capture all of the relevant parts, but don't add any discussion and/or analysis. This will come later.

2. Procedural History - What was the procedural history (briefly, how did the case reach the SCC? Is it on appeal from another court? Which court would that be?) This can likely be summed up in a sentence or two.

3. Issue(s)- What are the issues before the SCC? What are the legal issues/questions that they are being asked to decide on? This can be summed up very briefly in a few sentences, and does not need any more detail other than identifying the relevant issues/questions.

4. Rule/Ratio (** the most important part!): how should courts in Canada treat these issue(s), based on the decision of the SCC?

5. Analysis/Application - What arguments did they accept? What arguments did they reject? How did they apply existing legal principles to the issues they were being asked to decide on? What other factors, if any, played a role in reaching their decision, and how?

Conclusion

Case link: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2019/2019scc34/2019scc34.html