Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC – Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Technical and general information from the podcast's RSS feed.

Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC

Criminal Lawyers' Association

Education

Business

Frequency: 1 episode/15d. Total Eps: 81

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.

Read moreCollapse

Site

RSS

Apple

Data updated on 04/07/2026

Recent rankings

Latest chart positions across Apple Podcasts and Spotify rankings.

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

No recent rankings available

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

Links found in episode descriptions and other podcasts that share them.

See all

https://scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/sum-som-fra.aspx?cas=39935
2 shares

RSS feed quality and score

Technical evaluation of the podcast's RSS feed quality and structure.

See all

RSS feed quality

To improve

Score global : 68%

Publication history

Monthly episode publishing history over the past years.

Year

Latest published episodes

Recent episodes with titles, durations, and descriptions.

See all

Episode 8: R. v. Campbell

Season 7 · Episode 8

Wednesday, October 23, 2024 • Duration 03:11:06

Mr. Campbell was convicted of trafficking, and heroine and Fentanyl, and possessing those drugs for the purpose of trafficking them, contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. At trial, Mr. Campbell argued that his rights under Section 8 of The Charter had been violated because he had privacy interests in text messages that he was sending a local dealer. When police arrested that local dealer, incoming text messages were visible on the lock screen that suggested the sender was selling a quantity of drugs to the local dealer. Police impersonated the local dealer and responded to the messages, directing the sender where to attend. Mr. Campbell arrived in accordance with the police instructions for the fictious transaction. He was arrested and 14.33 grams of heroine mixed with fentanyl was found after a search incident to arrest. The trial judge dismissed the Charter application, citing that Mr. Campbell had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages, and that there were exigent circumstances present for police to act because the texts clearly indicated Fentanyl was to be trafficked. The Court of Appeal agreed that the trafficking of Fentanyl is of such grave public concern that it constituted exigent circumstances, but found that Mr. Campbell did in fact have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the lock screen texts. However, given the police had exigent circumstances, there was no finding that his Section 8 rights were breached and accordingly, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 7: R. c. Boudreau (French)

Season 7 · Episode 7

Wednesday, October 16, 2024 • Duration 40:31

Bonjour et bienvenue à un autre épisode de Canada’s Court présenté par l’Association des avocats de la défense. Je m’appelle Jade Roberts et je suis une avocate de la défense basée à Toronto. Je vous présente aujourd’hui le dossier de Boudreau contre sa Majesté le Roi

Gabriel Boudreau est déclaré coupable de conduite dangereuse causant des lésions corporelles suite à une collision qui s'est survenu entre M. Boudreau et la plaignante. La juge de première instance a conclu qu'il avait participé à une course avec un autre conducteur. En appel, l'appelant fait valoir que la juge de première instance a erré en concluant qu'il avait participé à une course avec un autre conducteur. Les juges majoritaires à la Cour d'appel du Québec rejettent l'appel puisqu'ils sont d'avis que le verdict n'est pas déraisonnable.

Cependant, la juge dissidente a remarqué que la juge de première instance a commis deux erreurs : premièrement, la version de l'appelant était compatible avec le site des dommages en plus d'avoir été confirmée par le témoignage de la plaignante; et deuxièmement, la conclusion de la juge selon laquelle la plaignante circulait dans la voie de gauche bien avant l'impact était contredite par le témoignage de la plaignante. Ces conclusions sont au cœur de l’analyse de doute raisonnable. L’appelant soutien toujours que le verdict est déraisonnable.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 6: R. v. Flemmings

Season 7 · Episode 6

Wednesday, October 9, 2024 • Duration 33:30

This is a bonus episode that features oral argument for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The applicants, Mr. Flemmings and Mr. Agpoon, received a stay of proceedings at trial under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter because of unreasonable delay in bringing them to trial. The heart of the issue was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on delay. The Crown preferred a direct indictment to mitigate delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the applicants successfully argued at trial that the direct indictment was brought unreasonably late. The Court of Appeal overturned the stay and ordered a new trial. That case was called Agpoon.

An accused person is entitled to an oral hearing to argue leave to appeal to the Supreme Court when, as here, a court of appeal overturns an acquittal or stay on an indictable charge and orders a new trial.

The applicants sought leave to the Supreme Court, submitting that this case was the Court’s first and best chance determine how COVID-19 delay should be treated under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 5: R. v. Hodgson

Season 7 · Episode 5

Wednesday, October 2, 2024 • Duration 02:01:01

The Appellant, Daniel Hodgson, was charged with second-degree murder following a death at a house party. The victim, a large man, had become aggressive towards the house owner and refused to leave. Mr. Hodgson, who was asleep in a nearby bedroom, was asked by a guest to help remove the victim from the house. The victim died after Mr. Hodgson applied a one-arm choke hold on him.

Mr. Hodgson was acquitted at trial in the Nunavut Court of Justice. The trial judge had reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Hodgson had the requisite intent for murder. On the lesser included offence of manslaughter, the Court held that the Crown had not disproven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Hodgson acted in self-defence, pursuant to s. 34 of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed to the Nunavut Court of Appeal, who set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Crown’s submission that the trial judge improperly took a solely subjective approach to assessing Mr. Hodgson’s response to the perceived threat posed by the victim.

Mr. Hodgson sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which was granted. Mr. Hogson argues, among other grounds of appeal, that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that the trial judge erroneously approached the issue of the reasonableness of his response under s. 34(2)(c) from a purely subjective perspective.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 4: R. c. Archambault (French)

Season 7 · Episode 4

Wednesday, September 25, 2024 • Duration 02:41:21

En juin et juillet 2019, dans deux dossiers distincts : M. Archambault est accusé de commettre un attentat à la pudeur d’une personne de sexe masculin, survenu entre 1958 et 1960, et M. Grenier est accusé de commettre les infractions de contacts sexuels et agression sexuelle, entre 2003 et 2007. À partir de 2019, ces infractions sont passibles d’un emprisonnement maximal de 14 ans. Cependant, ces infractions étaient passibles d’un emprisonnement maximal de dix ans au moment où ils auraient été commis.

Le 19 septembre 2019, l’art. 535 du Code criminel est modifié, et le droit à l’enquête préliminaire est aboli lorsqu’un prévenu est inculpé d’un acte criminel passible d’une peine d’emprisonnement de moins de 14 ans.

Les deux intimés présentent une demande d’enquête préliminaire après le 19 septembre 2019. Les deux demandes sont rejetées par la Cour du Québec pour absence de compétence après la modification à l’art. 535 du Code criminel. Les deux intimés ont fait appel devant la Cour supérieure du Québec, qui refuse le contrôle judiciaire dans chacun des deux cas.

La Cour d’appel du Québec détermine que la modification à l’art. 535 du Code criminel s’applique prospectivement et elle renvoie chacun des dossiers à la Cour du Québec pour une enquête préliminaire.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 3: R. v. Ramos

Season 7 · Episode 3

Wednesday, September 18, 2024 • Duration 01:17:41

The appellants, Emanuel Lozada and Victor Ramos, were both charged with manslaughter. They, along with one another male, were involved in two fights, the second of which resulted in the fatal stabbing of the victim. At trial, the Crown argued that the appellants were liable as co-principals or as aiders or abettors of the stabber. A jury found both appellants guilty of manslaughter.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, alleging, among other grounds, that the trial judge erred in his jury instruction on the law of causation regarding co-principal liability. The majority dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury instructions, read as a whole, accurately reflected the law of causation as it applied to the appellants. In dissent however, Justice Paciocco would have allowed the appeal, would have quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

He concluded that the trial judge had misdirected the jury by understating the standard of “reasonable foreseeability” that the jury could use in deciding whether the appellant’s unlawful act amounted to a “significant contributing cause” of the victim’s death.

Mr. Lozada and Mr. Ramos both appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 2: R. c Landry (French)

Season 7 · Episode 2

Sunday, September 8, 2024 • Duration 01:14:34

L’appelant, un policier, était en arrêt de travail temporaire en raison de troubles médicaux. Lors d’une réunion avec un médecin-arbitre qui devait déterminer si l’incapacité de l’appelant était permanente, celui-ci a dénaturé ses activités de travail auprès des agences de voyage de son ex-épouse. Le médecin-arbitre a conclu à l’incapacité permanente de l’appelant, qui avait en conséquence droit à une indemnité permanente d’invalidité de son employeur. L’employeur avait connaissance de certaines des activités de travail de l’appelant, mais il n’en a pas informé le médecin-arbitre.

Le juge du procès a conclu que tous les éléments de l’infraction de fraude dépassant 5 000 $ étaient établis. L’appelant a été reconnu coupable d’un chef d’accusation de fraude. La Cour d’appel a confirmé à la majorité la décision du premier juge. La juge Cotnam de la Cour d’appel a exprimé sa dissidence et aurait substitué un verdict de tentative de fraude.

La dissidence de la juge Cotnam a accordé à M. Landry le droit de faire appel de la décision devant la Cour suprême du Canada.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 1: R. v. Vu

Season 7 · Episode 1

Wednesday, September 4, 2024 • Duration 01:01:41

Private D.T. Vu was charged with sexual assault. It was alleged that he performed a sex act on the complainant who was incapable of consenting to the act by reason of advanced intoxication. The military judge concluded that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant failed to consent.

The Crown appealed to the Court Martial Appeal Court. The appeal was dismissed. However, in dissent, Justice McVeigh concluded that the military judge erred in law by failing to consider all of the evidence cumulatively, which led him to speculate improperly about alternative theories. These errors might have reasonably had a material bearing on the verdict. Further, the military judge erred by relying on improper inferences which, in effect, amounted to an insistence that the complainant’s intoxication had to be corroborated beyond the available evidence in this case.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada as of right.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 6: R. c Franck Yvan Tayo Tompouba (French)

Season 6 · Episode 6

Wednesday, August 28, 2024 • Duration 02:45:15

Monsieur Tayo Tompouba est inculpé d’agression sexuelle. Lors de sa première comparution, il n’est pas avisé de son droit de faire une demande de subir son procès en français, malgré l’obligation de la cour de l’en informer selon le par. 530(3) du Code criminel. Il est reconnu coupable après un procès en anglais. La Cour d’appel reconnait l’erreur de ne pas avoir avisé M. Tayo Tompouba de son droit, mais elle applique la disposition réparatrice afin de rejeter son appel. La Cour d’appel statue que le droit prévu au par. 530(3) s’agit d’un droit procédural et non d’un droit substantiel.

Read moreCollapse

Episode 5: R c Sergeant S.R. Proulx, et al. (FRENCH)

Season 6 · Episode 5

Wednesday, August 21, 2024 • Duration 02:09:50

Les appelants sont des membres des Forces armées canadiennes. Chacun faisant face à diverses accusations. Ils ont chacun déposé une requête préliminaire en cour martiale pour demander l’arrêt des procédures en alléguant une atteinte au droit constitutionnel d’être jugé par un tribunal indépendant et impartial que leur garantit l’al. 11d) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés. Selon les appelants, la possibilité que des juges militaires soient poursuivis pour des violations alléguées du code de discipline militaire constituait une atteinte au droit d’être jugé par un tribunal indépendant et impartial. Et en plus, ils ont demandé au juge militaire de déclarer que les art. 12, 17, 18 et 60 de la Loi sur la défense nationale étaient aussi une atteinte au droit d’être jugé par un tribunal indépendant et impartial. Le juge militaire de première instance a conclu qu’il y avait une atteinte au droit des accusés prévu à l’al. 11d) de la Charte.

La Cour d’appel de la cour martiale du Canada a accueilli les appels de la Couronne, statuant que le code de discipline militaire s’appliquait à juste titre aux juges militaires et elle a rejeté l’appel incident des accusés.

Read moreCollapse

Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC – Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Recent rankings

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

RSS feed quality and score

Publication history

Latest published episodes

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Canada's Court: Oral Arguments from the SCC – Details, episodes & analysis

Podcast details

Recent rankings

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Shared links between episodes and podcasts

Other1

RSS feed quality and score

Publication history

Latest published episodes

Similar podcasts and content

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Apple Podcasts

Spotify

Related Shows Based on Content Similarities

Other1