Hall v Hebert is a leading tort law case decided by the Supreme Court of Canada on the defences of contributory negligence and ex turpi causa non oritur actio (the principle that a plaintiff cannot recover for illegal actions).

The central issue on appeal was whether the doctrine ex turpi causa non oritur actio provided a complete defence.

In the result, the plaintiff in this case was not seeking to profit from his illegal conduct (drinking and driving), nor was he circumventing the criminal law.

[3] The Supreme Court revisited the doctrine in British Columbia v. Zastowny,[4] where they applied the decision in Hall to hold that a person is not entitled to compensation for unemployment during a prison sentence, except in circumstances such as a wrongful conviction.

The United Kingdom's Supreme Court commended the ruling in 2016 for its explanation of the "essential rationale" behind the illegality doctrine.