R. v. Saddleback

canada, canadian, case law, court opinion, canlii, csc-scc, 2026scc18, 2026 scc 18 (canlii), 2026, scc, 18, (canlii), 41567, 2026, evidence, hearsay, out, of, court statement, rule against hearsay, whether trial judge used victim’s statement for truth of contents, trial reasons read functionally and contextually, no voir dire admitting statement for truth, no stated hearsay exception or non, hearsay use, reliance on inadmissible hearsay found, new trial required, procedure, reasons, appellate review, sufficiency of reasons, whether trial reasons allow inference or reconstruction of admissible use, presumption trial judges know the law, ambiguity not enough, reasons must disclose intelligible path for use of out, of, court statement, reasons insufficient on this record, appeal dismissed, procedure, appeals, curative proviso, criminal code, s. 686(1)(b)(iii), whether proviso can be applied of the court’s own motion, error of law presumed prejudicial, crown bears onus, crown did not rely on proviso before court of appeal or this court, proviso unavailable, new trial required, appeal dismissed