The Crown sought admission of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers during a secondary customs examination following arrival at Toronto airport.
The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused’s rights under ss. 7 and 10 of the Charter, and should be excluded under s. 24(2).
The court held that the questioning at customs secondary constituted a routine border examination and that the accused’s statements prior to arrest were voluntary and admissible.
However, after the accused was arrested, officers failed to properly advise him of his right to counsel of choice and delayed facilitating access to counsel.
Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court excluded all statements made after the arrest due to the Charter breach.
