This pre-trial ruling addressed the admissibility of a video-recorded police interview statement made by the accused, K.M., who was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of his two oldest biological daughters.
The Crown sought to admit the exculpatory statement for potential cross-examination, arguing it was voluntary and Charter-compliant.
The accused contended it was involuntary, citing repeated assertions of his right to remain silent during the interview.
Following a voir dire, the court found the statement admissible, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that it was voluntarily provided and not obtained in violation of the accused's right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Charter, applying the principles from R. v. Oickle and R. v. Singh.
