Editor’s Note: This post was written as a preview of an upcoming Supreme Court of Canada decision for the Fantasy Courts website and newsletter. Photo by ABEL MARQUEZ on Unsplash.
☎️ On Friday, May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada will release its decision in R. v. Saddleback. At issue is whether a trial judge improperly used a deceased person’s statement made during a phone call for the truth of its contents and whether that error justified setting aside a murder conviction.
🎯 On May 15, 2026, the SCC released its decision in Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16. In a 6:3 result, the Court allowed the appeal in part and recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence.
🤖 Only 28% of Fantasy Courts players correctly predicted the result. The SCCbot got it wrong.
🔮 Head over to Fantasy Courts to lock in your predictions for this week’s decision. Scroll down for details on this week’s case or a recap of last week’s judgment.
Case to Predict: When Is a Deceased’s Phone Call Hearsay?
Appeal as of right from R. v. Saddleback, 2024 ABCA 352
What Happened?
Saddleback was convicted of second-degree murder after Joshua Dennehy was beaten to death with an axe. Earlier that evening, Dennehy and Saddleback had been drinking with others near a trailer. Most of the group later left for another party, while Dennehy and Saddleback remained behind.
Dennehy was on the phone with his girlfriend, Delayna Bull, shortly before his death. During the call, he referred to having to fight someone. Bull later testified about the timing of the call and what she heard, including sounds that the trial judge found were consistent with Dennehy being attacked. The trial judge also referred to Dennehy having mentioned people leaving, and concluded that this left only Dennehy and Saddleback at the scene.
A majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal held that the trial judge improperly used Dennehy’s statement for a hearsay purpose — namely, to prove that others were leaving at the time of the call, leaving Saddleback with exclusive opportunity. The majority ordered a new trial. Justice Crighton dissented, finding that the trial judge used the statement only as circumstantial evidence, not for the truth of its contents. The Crown appealed as of right.
What Was Argued at the SCC?
Appellant: The Crown argues that the Alberta Court of Appeal majority wrongly treated the statement as hearsay. It says the trial judge did not rely on Dennehy’s statement as direct proof that people were leaving at that exact moment. Rather, the fact that the statement was made had independent circumstantial value and could properly be considered alongside other evidence. The Crown says the hearsay rule does not prevent judges from drawing reasonable inferences from the fact that a statement was made, especially where the witness who heard it was available for cross-examination. It asks the Court to allow the appeal and restore the conviction.
Respondent: Saddleback argues that the majority was right. He says the statement mattered only because of the implied assertion that others were leaving when Dennehy said it. The trial judge then used that timing to conclude that Saddleback had exclusive opportunity to kill Dennehy. That, Saddleback says, was classic hearsay: an untested out-of-court statement used to prove a material fact. He also argues that the trial judge misapprehended Bull’s evidence about the word “ditched” and gave insufficient reasons in a circumstantial murder case with conflicting witness accounts and investigative gaps.
What Else Should You Know Before Making a Prediction?
This is a technical hearsay case, but the stakes are significant. If the Court sides with the Crown, it may confirm a broader role for out-of-court statements as circumstantial evidence, even where the statement helps build the factual timeline. If it sides with Saddleback, the decision may reinforce a stricter boundary between using a statement as “the fact it was made” and using it for the truth of an implied assertion.
I’m leaning toward appeal dismissed and a new trial maintained. The trial judge’s “within minutes” reasoning seems to make the timing of the deceased’s statement do real work on the issue of exclusive opportunity.
SCCbot
This season, we’re also asking the SCCbot, an AI tool that predicts Supreme Court of Canada decisions, what it thinks the Court will do. This week, the SCCbot predicts the appeal will be allowed (but only ~55% confidence). It expects the conviction to be restored on the strength of Evans and the trial judge’s modest framing of his use of the statement. But it notes that the ABCA majority’s reasoning is tight and the Crown’s decision below not to argue the principled approach or the Tompouba-style curative proviso has narrowed its options. It also says to watch for an effort to draw a clearer line between permissible non-hearsay use and impermissible reliance on an implied assertion — a question that has been live at the Court since Baldree and that trial judges will be glad to see resolved. SCCbot is now 8 for 11 in its predictions.
Previous Case Recap: Ahluwalia
Ahluwalia v. Ahluwalia, 2026 SCC 16
Held (6:3): Appeal allowed in part. The new tort of intimate partner violence is recognized.
Key points:
- The Court recognized a new tort of intimate partner violence, replacing the Court of Appeal’s declaration that no new tort of domestic violence or coercive control should be recognized.
- The five-judge majority held that the tort requires proof that the abusive conduct arose in an intimate partnership or its aftermath, that the defendant intentionally engaged in the conduct, and that the conduct objectively constituted coercive control.
- Existing torts like assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress were not enough to capture the distinct harm caused by coercive control: loss of dignity, autonomy, and equality within the intimate partnership.
- Justice Karakatsanis agreed that a new tort should be recognized but would have made it broader, covering not only coercive control but also acts or threats of violence causing physical or psychological harm in an intimate partner relationship.
- Justices Côté, Rowe, and Jamal dissented. They would have dismissed the appeal, holding that existing torts already provided full compensation and that recognizing a new tort risked uncertainty.
- The damages award remains $100,000, now characterized as general compensatory damages for the tort of intimate partner violence.
📊 28% of Fantasy Courts players predicted correctly. SCCbot got it wrong.
Thanks for reading and playing Fantasy Courts. If you liked today’s newsletter, we’d love for you to share it with a friend, or you can sign up to receive it as an email: https://mailchi.mp/37b20ffd0198/fantasycourts
-Tom Slade