3 total
The accused's statement was excluded as involuntary because the police failed to provide a full caution.
The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of the accused's audio/video recorded statement.
The accused brought a cross-application to exclude the statement, alleging violations of sections 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights.
The court found that the police officer failed to provide a full caution, specifically omitting that anything the accused said could be used against him in court.
Despite the accused having consulted counsel and being told not to speak, the officer continued questioning and made comments that, while not amounting to lawyer denigration, contributed to an environment where the accused could not make a free and meaningful choice.
The court concluded that the lack of a full caution, in these circumstances, raised a reasonable doubt about the statement's voluntariness, leading to its exclusion.
Youth found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after consensual fist fight resulted in lost teeth.
The young person accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight with another youth.
The fight resulted in the complainant losing two front teeth.
The court analyzed the law on consent in fist fights, applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Jobidon and Paice.
The court found that the accused intended to cause non-trivial bodily harm and did in fact cause such harm, thereby vitiating any consent to the fight.
The accused was found guilty.
A young person was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm after a consensual fist fight resulted in the complainant losing two front teeth, as consent was vitiated on public policy grounds.
A young person was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight at a recreation centre.
The accused struck the complainant with an uppercut while holding him by the neck, causing the loss of two front teeth.
The court examined the law governing consent to street fights, particularly as it applies to young persons, and determined that consent could be vitiated on public policy grounds when bodily harm beyond the trivial is intended and caused.
The court found the accused guilty, holding that the facts met the test established in Jobidon and Paice, and that the circumstances fell within the core policy concerns underlying the law on consent to fights.
