The Crown sought to admit utterances made by the accused, Najib Amin, during an undercover police operation in his first-degree murder trial.
The defence opposed admission, citing principles from R. v. Hart.
The court, applying the Hart factors as a framework, found the utterances admissible, concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and that police conduct did not constitute an abuse of process.
The ruling specifically addressed four categories of utterances, finding them all admissible with one requiring a specific instruction to mitigate prejudice.