Brent R. Anderson

The appeal considered whether the confessions rule applies to accused statements used only on a Charter voir dire, whether police had exigent circumstances under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for a warrantless home entry, and whether seized evidence should be excluded under s. 24(2).

The majority held the confessions rule does not govern this voir dire use, found the warrantless entry violated s. 8 because obtaining a warrant was practicable, and excluded the resulting evidence.

The appeal was allowed, convictions were set aside, and acquittals were entered.

The Crown appealed a British Columbia Court of Appeal decision that had set aside the respondent's convictions for forcible confinement, overcoming resistance to commission of an offence, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and assault causing bodily harm, and ordered a new trial.

The Court of Appeal majority had held that the trial judge's denial of the respondent's severance application resulted in injustice.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not act unjudicially in denying the severance application and that no injustice resulted from the denial.