Canada’s Court is the first podcast to highlight select oral hearings from The Supreme Court of Canada. Presented by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association and available on all major podcast platforms. Visit podcast.criminallawyers.ca for more information.
A full webcast version of the oral arguments featured in each episode can be viewed from The Supreme Court of Canada website at scc-csc.ca or obtained from the court directly.
The Supreme Court of Canada is not affiliated with this podcast and did not produce or participate in it’s creation.
Despite the fact that the trial judge found that the appellant sent sexually explicit material to a minor, the trial judge was left in doubt as to whether (a) the identity of the appellant was made out on the video as an element of the offence, and (b) the specific intent to commit one of the enumerated offences, reasoning that it could have been simply a case of “flirtation”. The appellant was acquitted at trial of transmitting sexually explicit material to a person under the age of 16 for the purpose of facilitating the commission of either a sexual assault or the indecent act of exposing his genital organs to a person under 16 years of age for a sexual purpose.
The Ontario Court of Appeal held that neither the identity of the accused in the video or the specific intent to commit an enumerated offence was an element of the offences required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The Court took specific issue with justifying inappropriate behaviour by adults as “flirtation” with a minor. The acquittal was set aside and convictions entered because the Court of Appeal held that but for those errors by the trial judge, the appellant would have been convicted at trial.
15 Sept 2026
Episode 1: His Majesty the King v. Dylon Saddleback
Dylan Saddleback was convicted of second-degree murder in a judge alone trial. What was at issue on appeal was the trial judge’s use of statements made by the deceased during a phone call to a 3rd party, who testified at trial. The duration of that same phone call was important because the trial judge found that this is when the killing took place, as the 3rd party witness heard sounds on the phone consistent with the deceased, Joshua Dennehy, being beaten.
The Alberta Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by using the deceased’s statement for a hearsay purpose, or in other words—for the truth of its contents— instead of the correct approach which should have been to solely rely on the statement as having been made. The majority of the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial. The dissenting justice disagreed, and would have dismissed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge used the deceased’s statement correctly in finding the accused guilty.
5 Feb 2026
Episode 7: S.A. v. His Majesty the King
S.A.’s trial for the charges of assault and sexual assault, was scheduled to commence on April 17, 2023. He elected to be tried by judge and jury. On the trial date, a judge was unavailable to preside, so the trial did not commence. A subsequent trial date was scheduled for February 12, 2024. The defence brought an 11(b) application. The 11(b) application judge stayed the proceedings, and held that even though the delay was below the presumptive 30-month ceiling set out in Jordan, the delay was unreasonable. The judge reasoned that unfilled judicial vacancies was an important factor that should be taken into account when assessing the delay. The Crown appealed.
The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown and found that the application judge made an error in concluding that delay from laying the charge to the anticipated end of the trial, approximately 26.5 months, was unreasonable delay. The Court of Appeal held that although the application judge stated the law correctly, the application of the law was in error. The Court of Appeal emphasized that when assessing delay the analysis must include a holistic approach, and cited the following factors for granting the Crown’s appeal, and setting aside the stay of proceedings:
1. The net delay in this case was well below the Jordan ceiling;
2. Both the Crown and Defence had both acted with haste and diligence to move the case forward;
3. There was an increase in complex cases in the Toronto region;
4. The Toronto region was still experiencing the backlog of cases as a result of the pandemic;
5. The appellant was not in custody and was out on bail;
6. Nothing novel in this case warranted a sense of urgency (such as a young complainant, or this matter being a re-trial); and
7. Had the first trial date had gone ahead, this two-week jury trial would have been completed in less than 17 months, which even falls below the ceiling for a trial proceeding only in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Reach and audience
Public platform figures. Ratings count people who left a rating, not total listeners.
Spotify
5.0 / 5
45 ratings
Podcast Authority Score: 38 / 100
A composite of feed quality, social presence, YouTube performance and engagement. Read the methodology.
Quality
76
Social presence
0
YouTube
0
Engagement
0
Contact Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC
Guest appearances
Books guests
Based on episode analysis; this does not confirm that the show is currently accepting guests.
Pod Engine is an independent podcast discovery and analytics service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by this podcast. Artwork and show content belong to their owners. Full legal notice.
Explore this show Podcast research with Pod Engine
