Shows
The Full Court PressAutomatic Excision Rule: Mini LecureA simple rule in many respects but often misunderstood and overlooked. The automatic excision rule requires courts to remove any information obtained through a Charter breach from an Information to Obtain (ITO) before assessing whether there were reasonable and probable grounds for a search or arrest. If the remaining information can't support the state action on its own, the warrant or arrest is invalid. The rule ensures the state can't rely on unconstitutional conduct to justify privacy intrusions.2025-05-1703 min
The Full Court PressAutomatic Excision: ChatGPTxNotebookLMChatGPT conducted some Deep Research on one of my favourite topics: Automatic Excision. That research was then fed into NotebookLM’s studio. And this pod was born. It’s not perfect but it gives the listener a primer or refresh on the legal principles at play. Automatic Excision is basically the idea that police can’t benefit from unconstitutionally obtained information. When they illegally obtain information by breaching your rights, they can’t use that ill-gotten info to inform their future grounds to search or arrest you.So today we have AI doing double duty: ChatGPTx...2025-04-2219 min
The Full Court PressFailure to hear from the offender before sentencing: When does it matter?Ontario courts have long recognized the importance of s. 726, but they have also clarified that a lapse in offering allocution does not automatically void the sentencing outcome. In R. v. Bynoe, 2025 ONCA 274, for example, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a sentencing judge’s failure to invite the offender to speak. The transcript showed the offender was not offered any opportunity to address the court before sentence. The Crown on appeal conceded this was an error under s. 726, but characterized it as an inadvertent oversight – noting that Bynoe was represented by counsel who did not indicate that...2025-04-1702 min
The Full Court PressCan Provocation Co-Exist with Self Defence? R. v. CopelandIn this episode of The Full Court Press, ChatGPT discusses the recent Ontario Court of Appeal case R. v. Copeland (2025 ONCA 278), focusing on the partial defence of provocation. We outlined the key facts: Copeland was convicted of second-degree murder after claiming self-defence during a fatal confrontation with his girlfriend. He attempted, late in the trial, to also argue provocation based on being accused of theft and attacked with a knife.We clarified the elements of provocation under Canadian law—both objective (a wrongful act or insult sufficient to provoke an ordinary person) and subjective (a sudden loss of...2025-04-1503 min
The Full Court PressR. v. Chizanga, 2025 SCC 9 (Notebook LM Pod)🎙️This time on the Full Court Press we listen to an AI generated convo created by Google's "Notebook LM."It's not a dynamic, real-time interaction with an AI model but, rather, a (very realistic-sounding) "fake" conversation between two speakers generated after uploading the case into Notebook LM's large language model.I say "fake" conversation but then again: How do we define "fake". If it sounds like a duck, walks like a duck...Regardless, an interesting decision out of the SCC that we should be aware of and the corresponding judgment out of the ONCA...2025-04-0913 min
The Full Court PressNo REP in EDR 🚗Case Overview: R. v. Attard, 2024 ONCA 616Court: Ontario Court of Appeal Date: August 16, 2024 Panel: Gillese, van Rensburg, and Roberts JJ.A.Facts:Wendel Attard was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm after a serious crash in Brampton, Ontario. At trial, the Crown sought to admit data from the vehicle's Event Data Recorder (EDR), which logged details such as speed, throttle, and braking in the five seconds before impact. The data showed Attard was speeding—up to 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.Police had seized th...2025-04-0802 min
The Full Court PressSearching Your Phone at the Border: 2024 ONCA 608The case is R. v. Pike, 2024 ONCA 608, decided by the Ontario Court of Appeal on August 9th, 2024.The core issue was whether section 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act—which lets border officers search digital devices without any objective grounds—violates section 8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.The Court held that the law is unconstitutional. They said searching digital devices—like phones and laptops—without at least reasonable suspicion is too intrusive to be justified by border security needs alone.2025-04-0802 min
The Full Court PressR v PP, 2025 ONCA 243🎙️ New Episode of The Full Court Press — R. v. P.P. and the Problem with AssumptionsIn this episode, we break down R. v. P.P., 2025 ONCA 243—a case that’s more than just a reversal of convictions. It's a real-world application of the Supreme Court’s decision in R. v. Kruk on when appellate courts can step in on credibility findings. We talk cultural assumptions, credibility missteps, and yes—a trial judge’s late-stage “Freudian slip” theory that went way offside. Plus, a nod to the father-son legal team who argued the case—and won.🎧 Tune in for sharp l...2025-03-3110 min
The Full Court PressR. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219Fabrication and Guilt: R. v. Ahmadi, 2025 ONCA 219 🏀 The Full Court Press – Quick HitIn this episode, Nate breaks down R. v. Ahmadi, a 2025 decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal, focusing on a key evidentiary issue: when an accused’s out-of-court statements can be used against them.The Court draws a sharp line between disbelieving a statement and finding it was fabricated. Only fabricated statements—with independent evidence backing that up—can be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt.We talk through how Ahmadi’s ever-changing police interview crossed that line, how the trial...2025-03-2504 min
The Full Court Press R. v. James, 2025 ONCA 213; R. v. Arora, 2025 ONCA 218In this episode, defense lawyer Nate Jackson and ChatGPT break down two fresh decisions from the Ontario Court of Appeal:R. v. James (2025 ONCA 213) — A case about serious drug charges, police misconduct, and Charter breaches. The court excludes key evidence due to a reckless search and right-to-counsel violation, resulting in two acquittals. A clear message: rights matter, even in high-stakes drug prosecutions.R. v. Arora (2025 ONCA 218) — A dramatic extortion and confinement case involving fake guns, duct tape, and a $1.75 million withdrawal. The court affirms a 7-year sentence, rejecting arguments about double-counting aggravating factors and discounting mitigating ones.2025-03-2507 min
The Full Court PressJohn Howard Society of Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan (Attorney General)Title: Presumed Innocent: The Supreme Court’s Ruling on Prison DisciplineLength: ~5 minutesIn this episode, Nate and ChatGPT break down the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in John Howard Society of Saskatchewan v. Saskatchewan (2025 SCC 6). The Court ruled that serious prison disciplinary proceedings—those that can result in segregation or loss of earned remission—must meet the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.2025-03-2505 min
Son of a Lunch Lady36 - Timmy "Loop Master" BoothMike is joined by the hilarious Timmy Booth on this weeks Average Oddcast. Join the guys as they we dive into the true EPIC that is Timmy Booth’s stand-up career.
Timmy Booth is a Standup comedian and Copywriter from North Carolina, now living in Seattle. He placed 3rd placein the 2023 Seattle International Comedy Competition 2022, and 4th place in Nate Jackson’s Funniest MFer, 2022. You may have seen him on The Needling, Cut.com, CBC, eBaum’s World, Dusty Slay’s Homegrown Showcase.
From his nerve-wracking debut show to his wild encounters at Comic Con, Timmy shares the hilarious and sometime...2023-10-201h 21