The appellant was arrested for possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.
After declining to give a statement to the police, he was placed in a cell.
An undercover police officer, posing as a truck driver detained for a traffic violation, was placed in the same cell.
The appellant made incriminating statements to the undercover officer.
The trial judge excluded the confession, finding the officer was a person in authority and the statement was improperly elicited.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the test for a 'person in authority' is subjective.
Since the appellant did not believe the undercover officer was a person in authority, the confession rule did not apply, and the statement was admissible.
