Canada Case Law

R v Allen

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The trial Justice of the Peace’s factual findings that the appellant was the identified driver, that his admission was voluntary, and that being in the driver’s seat with control of steering/brakes satisfied the Motor Vehicle Act definitions were reasonably open on the evidence; those findings attract deference on appeal and no palpable and overriding error or error of law was shown, so the conviction and sentence stand.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Identity and corroboration
• Definitions of ‘driver/operator/motor vehicle’
• Standard of review on summary conviction appeal
• Evidentiary sufficiency and timing of actus reus

Read case analysis

R v Corporong

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court held that although there was an uninformed and therefore invalid consent to an on‑scene cursory viewing of the tablet (s.8 breach), the breach was of limited seriousness, the tablet had been voluntarily handed over, reasonable and probable grounds to arrest existed prior to viewing, the warrants (July 8 and August 11, 2022 ITOs) were valid after appropriate excisions and amplification, the forensic analyst’s discovery and reporting of items outside the date range did not amount to an unlawful sharing or warrantless search, and under the Grant balancing the tablet data and related ev…

Source excerpt

• S.8 unreasonable search and seizure
• S.9 arbitrary detention/imprisonment
• S.10(b) right to counsel on arrest or detention
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Voluntariness of statements
• Warrant validity

Read case analysis

R. v. L.J.

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

On the facts the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the May 5, 2022 polygraph statement was voluntary; a reasonable person in the Accused's position would have felt free to leave so no detention (physical or psychological) occurred, s.10 rights were not engaged, and the statement is therefore admissible at trial.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Psychological detention
• Section 9 detention
• Section 10(a) and 10(b) right to counsel
• Polygraph evidence
• Confessions rule

Read case analysis

R. v. Majcher

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that William Robert Majcher’s July 18 and 19, 2023 post-arrest statements were voluntary and admissible, rejecting the claim of an evidentiary gap.

• Voluntariness of statements
• Police conduct
• Right to counsel
• Search incident to arrest
• Promises and threats
• Admissibility of evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Garkouth, Ibrahim Hussein, and Obatusa

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court held that Ramadhan Ibrahim Hussein’s police statement was voluntary and admissible after a contextual voir dire analysis of the interview.

• Voluntariness of statements
• Confessions rule
• Right to counsel (s.10(b))
• Police inducement and oppression
• Operating mind
• Police trickery

Read case analysis

United States v. Federuik

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

In an extradition disclosure ruling, the Court ordered targeted disclosure about CBSA-related materials and the applicant’s police statement, but refused broader speculative requests.

• Disclosure
• Admissibility of canadian-gathered evidence
• Extradition act s.32(2)
• Customs act s.107(5)(a)
• Canada post corporation act s.41(1)(c)
• Privacy act

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. Birthwright

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the July 20, 2021 and November 5, 2021 statements were voluntary because the officer did not provide a proper police caution or sufficiently communicate the accused's jeopardy, created an informational deficit and engaged in conduct that undermined voluntariness; the April 28, 2023 statement was derivative of the prior involuntary statements; those failures breached the accused's s.7 right to silence and all three statements are inadmissible.

Source excerpt

• Voluntariness of statements
• Confessions rule
• Right to silence (charter s.7)
• Right to counsel (charter s.10(b))
• Police caution
• Derived confessions

Read case analysis

R. v. Laidlaw

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The arrest was unlawful because the available information supported only a reasonable suspicion of alcohol consumption, not objectively reasonable grounds to believe the accused had driven while impaired; the breathalyzer readings flowed from that unlawful arrest and, applying the Grant factors, must be excluded under s.24 of the Charter.

Source excerpt

• Arrest
• Reasonable grounds vs suspicion
• Asd vs breathalyzer demands
• Voluntariness of statements
• Exclusion of evidence under s.24

Read case analysis

R. v. Kostuk

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to prove he lacked an operating mind or that police had an objectively observable reason to re-offer counsel after medication; he affirmed satisfaction with counsel before the interview; the video-recorded statement was voluntary and admissible; the trial judge properly admitted prior discreditable conduct as probative of animus, motive and identity after tailoring prejudicial details and no limiting instruction was required given the evidence and directions given; references to schizophrenia were not exploited by the Crown and the trial ju…

Source excerpt

• Right to counsel s.10(b)
• Voluntariness of statements
• Section 24(2) exclusion
• Prior misconduct/discreditable conduct evidence
• Limiting instructions and propensity reasoning
• Use of mental health evidence at trial

Read case analysis