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.
