The accused, charged with sexual interference and luring, brought a pretrial motion alleging his s. 7 and s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated during a 2013 police interview regarding a separate incident.
The Crown brought a cross-motion seeking to admit the 2013 statement as voluntary and as prior discreditable conduct.
The court found the statement was voluntary and that the accused was not psychologically detained during the interview.
However, the court ruled that the probative value of the statement as prior discreditable conduct was outweighed by its prejudicial effect, as it would invite propensity reasoning.
The Crown's application to adduce the evidence was denied.
