Not at all true.  Let me explain 'law' a bit.

Canadian law, based as it is on British law, is largely composed of judge-made law.  This is true whether it's pure common law (with no legislative basis) or judge-made law providing depth to often bare-bones legislation.  

Statutes can't possibly set out every situation and eventuality to which they apply; that's where judges come in. They've been doing it for close to 1,000 years now.

This particular case is about a General production order in the Criminal Code, and its exemption for "information that is privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure by law."

To be specific - journalist privilege (mostly a judge-made concept) and the extent to which section 2 (b) of the Charter is involved - "freedom of the press."

The Court of Appeal decision mostly involved prior court decisions.

So, yes, it's up to the Supreme Court to clarify the law. As courts have been doing for centuries.