In a criminal trial arising from a drug-facilitated sexual assault, the court determined the admissibility of statements the accused made to police about his prescription medications.
Applying the contextual voluntariness framework, the court held the statements were made freely, without threats, promises, oppression, trickery, or any overbearing of the accused's operating mind, and were instead part of his effort to obtain early release.
The court further held that routine health and safety questions asked at booking did not infringe s. 10(b) of the Charter.
In any event, the court concluded that the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) had a Charter breach been established.
