Canada Case Law

R. v. Babbington

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court concluded the trial judge did not err: the May 8, 2017 statement was voluntary under Oickle and Sinclair principles; the jury directions on planning and deliberation were adequate and appropriately avoided factual examples; the treatment of prior consistent statements complied with evidentiary rules; and identification directions were sufficient given compelling video and distinctive clothing evidence—therefore the conviction was upheld.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statement
• Right to counsel (second request)
• Planning and deliberation (first degree murder)
• Prior consistent statements and credibility
• Eyewitness and in‑dock identification
• Jury instructions

Read case analysis

R. v. Dookhram

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Applicant met surrender requirement and only one arguably non-frivolous ground (voluntariness), but failed to establish that the reviewability interest outweighs the enforceability interest because the offence is grave (first-degree murder in a murder-for-hire), the applicant poses significant danger, the ineffective-assistance ground is weak, and proposed conditions would not restore public confidence; application for release denied.

Source excerpt

• Judicial interim release
• Public interest criterion
• Voluntariness of statement
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Surrender requirement
• First-degree murder

Read case analysis

R. v. Bouthillette

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Voir dire on voluntariness: the court held the accused’s statement to police was inadmissible because oppressive conditions overbore his will.

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions rule
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Right to silence (s.7)
• Oppression doctrine
• Police interrogation

Read case analysis

R. v. Alexander

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court found Charlene Alexander’s post-arrest statement voluntary and admissible after a voir dire on the confessions rule, police caution, and alleged oppression.

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions rule
• Right to silence
• Police caution
• Oppression
• Operating mind

Read case analysis

R. v. Sheppard

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant's fresh evidence denying understanding was not credible; trial counsel's evidence that he explained appeal rights was accepted; the signed instructions and the strategic context (avoiding greater parole ineligibility) show the plea was voluntary, informed and unequivocal.

Source excerpt

• Guilty plea set aside
• Plea comprehension
• Voluntariness of statement
• Voir dire
• Parole ineligibility
• Fresh evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Nijjer

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

A voir dire on a videotaped police interview found the accused’s statement voluntary, but excluded most of it as irrelevant or prejudicial, admitting only the tablet identification and context.

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions rule
• Residual discretion to exclude evidence
• Right to silence
• Inducements
• Relevance and prejudice

Read case analysis

R. v. J.A.

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly identified and applied the voluntariness test, expressly considered the inducement and the surrounding circumstances (including alleged oppressive factors), accepted evidence that the appellant waived counsel and chose to speak, and reasonably found the statement voluntary; there was no legal error or palpable and overriding factual error, so the conviction stands.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions and admissions
• Voir dire
• Inducement
• Credibility assessment (w.(d.) analysis)

Read case analysis

R. v. MacIntosh

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Although the accused was subjected to unacceptable treatment that created an atmosphere of oppression (prolonged handcuffing, lack of food/water, interrupted sleep, delayed medication and unsuitable placement in an interview cubicle), the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused retained an operating mind, was not explicitly offered inducements, and from the time of arrest wanted to tell his version; therefore his will was not overborne and the statement was voluntary and admissible.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confessions rule
• Oppression
• Inducements/promises
• Operating mind
• Right to counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Morgan

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge reasonably found the videotaped statement voluntary because the officers’ conduct was aimed at protecting the appellant's health, there was no evidence she was unable to operate with an operating mind, she had multiple opportunities to consult counsel, and the challenged remarks did not amount to an inducement; appellate deference to the trial judge's factual credibility findings is required.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statement
• Confession admissibility
• Police inducement
• Right to counsel
• Appellate deference to findings of fact

Read case analysis

R. v. Ali

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court admitted Hilda Armanious’s Arabic-English translation evidence in a voluntariness voir dire, finding her qualified and not disqualified by bias.

• Voluntariness of statement
• Expert evidence admissibility
• Translation vs interpretation
• Bias and independence of expert
• Expert-evidence-admissibility
• Translation-vs-interpretation

Read case analysis