During a jury trial for attempted murder, the accused sought to exclude evidence that he had provided a cell phone number to his probation officer, which the police later used to obtain records placing him near the scene of the attack.
The accused argued that the statement was compelled and its admission would violate the common law confessions rule and the constitutional principle against self‑incrimination.
The court held that the probation officer was not a “person in authority” within the meaning of the confessions rule because there was no investigation or prosecution underway when the number was provided.
The court further found the number was given voluntarily in a voicemail message and was not compelled by the probation order, which required only that the accused provide an address.
Balancing the contextual factors under s. 7 of the Charter, the court concluded that admitting the phone number did not infringe the right against self‑incrimination and was admissible.
