Canada Case Law

R. v. Clyke

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that counsel's conduct caused prejudice or rendered the trial unfair to the extent required to establish a miscarriage of justice; the late disclosure of the 15‑minute audio was a breach but did not create a reasonable probability of a different or unfair outcome; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Charter s.10(b)
• Charter s.7 disclosure
• Admissibility of statements
• Fresh evidence
• Agreed statement of facts

Read case analysis

R v. MacSween

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Officers had objectively reasonable grounds to arrest for drug-impaired driving based on credible eyewitness accounts and police observations; the warrantless search and urine testing did not breach s.8; the delay awaiting an accredited evaluating officer and conducting the evaluation did not amount to arbitrary detention under s.9 because the demand was made and executed as soon as practicable; pre-arrest statements were not admitted for trial; on the admissible evidence the accused was proven guilty of driving while impaired by drugs under s.320.14 and not guilty of public mischief under s.…

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Public mischief
• Section 8 unreasonable search
• Section 9 arbitrary detention
• Drug recognition evaluation
• 'as soon as practicable' requirement

Read case analysis

R. v. Singh

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s statement to police was voluntary, so it was inadmissible.

• Voluntariness of statements
• Admissibility of statements
• Police conduct and custody procedures
• Secondary warning/official warning
• Voluntariness-of-statements
• Admissibility-of-statements

Read case analysis

R. v. Drake

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court found the Doyle utterances were not part of the same continuum as the later recorded statement so the whole-of-statement doctrine did not apply, but admitted only limited content: utterances identifying ownership of the Gucci bag (requests to retrieve money/cards) are admissible for that limited purpose; otherwise the inculpatory portions (including references implying 'this time' or long detention) were excluded because admitting them without highly prejudicial contextual evidence about the accused's prior murder arrest and detention would produce unacceptable moral and reasoning p…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility of statements
• Whole of the statement doctrine
• Mixed statement exception
• After-the-fact conduct
• Probative value vs prejudicial effect
• Voir dire

Read case analysis

He v. Fan

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court dismissed Mr. Fan’s bid for a voir dire to exclude statements made to opposing counsel, finding no person in authority, no detention, and no Charter breach.

• Contempt proceedings
• Right to counsel s.10(b)
• Right to silence s.7
• Voir dire
• Confessions rule
• Admissibility of statements

Read case analysis

R v. Fulford

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt the statement was voluntary; the accused was not a suspect or detained, the officer's entry into the vestibule was covered by a common law implied invitation, and the absence of a caution or recording did not materially impair voluntariness or admissibility, therefore the statement is admissible and the Charter s.9 and s.10(b) applications fail.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness
• Confessions rule
• Right to silence
• Psychological detention
• Charter s.9
• Charter s.10(b)

Read case analysis

R. v. Glasgow

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s remarks were voluntary under the Oickle framework (no threats/promises, oppression or trickery and accused had operating mind). The officer’s contemporaneous notes, properly used to refresh memory, provided an adequate substitute for an audio/video recording in these circumstances. Any limited prejudice did not outweigh probative value. Therefore the statement is admissible.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Confessions rule
• Admissibility of statements
• Recording of custodial interactions
• Refreshing memory / past recollection recorded

Read case analysis

R. v. Ranhotra

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court held the appellant was not detained when he made his on‑scene utterance so Charter s.10(b) was not engaged and the statement was admissible; the Crown's in‑court firearm demonstration and related submissions did not render the trial unfair given available evidence and the trial judge's curative instruction; the motive directions were adequate; and the sentence of life imprisonment with 15 years parole ineligibility was fit and should be upheld.

Source excerpt

• Detention and custody under charter s.10
• Admissibility of statements
• Voir dire
• Jury charge and closing submissions
• Motive in homicide
• Parole ineligibility for murder

Read case analysis

R. v Hosack

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Ernest Hosack’s appeal from a second-degree murder conviction, upholding the admissibility of his police statement and rejecting NCRMD and delay arguments.

• Confessions
• Voluntariness
• Operating mind
• Admissibility of statements
• Circumstantial evidence
• Fresh evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Dussault

Court

Supreme Court of Canada

The Supreme Court held that police breached s. 10(b) by undermining counsel’s advice and failing to give the accused a further chance to consult before interrogation.

• Section 10(b) right to counsel
• Reconsultation following initial consultation
• Admissibility of statements
• Section 24(2) exclusion remedy
• Right-to-counsel
• Charter-section-10b

Read case analysis