Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
There was insufficient evidence to infer the accused subjectively believed the social worker could control or influence investigation or prosecution; accordingly the social worker was not a person in authority and the accused's statements to her were admissible without the Crown proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Source excerpt
The court allowed a Crown voir dire application to admit text message screenshots and a handwritten note, holding live complainant evidence was not required.
Evidence that a complainant was sexually inactive or a virgin engages s.276(1) and the Seaboyer framework; the Crown must file a Seaboyer application specifying the proposed evidence and its relevance and a voir dire must be held before such evidence may be led.
Source excerpt
The court held the Crown’s admissibility application on ante mortem statements could proceed on the written record, without viva voce evidence from the proposed witnesses.
The court admitted a solicitor expert’s report and viva voce evidence in a mid-trial voir dire, finding it could assist on standard of care and that objections mostly went to weight.
The court granted a defence application in a voluntariness voir dire to cross-examine police witnesses about alleged police trickery affecting the accused’s right to silence.
Because the allegations are historical, the complainant is the sole direct Crown witness, and contemporaneous and earlier records (child protection notes, counselling records, manuscript) plausibly contain descriptions created before police statements and preliminary inquiry testimony and thus could be logically probative of credibility and reliability, the applicant met the likely relevance threshold and showed production for in‑camera review is necessary in the interests of justice under s.278.5, so the court ordered specified records produced for judicial review.
Source excerpt
The application to withdraw the prior admission is denied: the court found the accused's evidence not credible or reliable, defence counsel provided competent advice and acted within reasonable strategic bounds, the accused expressly and/or implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege to the limited extent necessary, the admission was not shown to be made by mistake or without authority, and withdrawal would prejudice the Crown; accordingly the voluntariness voir dire remains waived.
Source excerpt
On the facts the Crown proved on a balance of probabilities that the individual received express assurances of confidentiality and acted as a confidential informant, there was no clear informed waiver, and therefore informer privilege applies to the requested communications and reports; disclosure is denied absent a successful innocence‑at‑stake showing.
Source excerpt
The court excluded the accused’s statements, finding the Crown had not proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt after misleading police legal advice and psychological pressure.
Explore more
