The accused applied to exclude a police statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(c), and alternatively arguing the statement was involuntary.
During a police interview concerning historical sexual offences, the accused—who had documented intellectual limitations—was initially allowed to contact duty counsel but was not properly informed of the reasons for detention or the extent of his jeopardy.
The court found that the accused was effectively detained once he began making incriminating admissions but was not advised of his detention or given a renewed opportunity to consult counsel.
Police also persisted in questioning after the accused expressed reluctance to continue, undermining his right to silence.
The court concluded the statement was not voluntary and that Charter breaches occurred, rendering the statement inadmissible.