2 total
Appeals dismissed; confessions admissible despite initial unlawful detention under non-existent legislation.
Two appellants were unlawfully detained by police under non-existent statutory authority after reporting their roommate's death, then later arrested for murder by a homicide detective who directed their continued questioning.
At issue were: the voluntariness of one appellant's confession, whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the murder arrests, and whether the confessions should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The majority dismissed the appeals, holding that one confession was voluntary, the arrests were lawful, and that although one confession was obtained in a manner connected to Charter breaches, admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The dissent would have allowed the appeals, finding the arrests were not supported by reasonable grounds and rejecting the 'fresh start' doctrine as a basis to sever the connection between Charter breaches and the evidence obtained.
Security for costs denied where claim had merit and order risked denying access to justice.
The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order requiring the plaintiff, a resident of the United States, to post security for costs in a wrongful dismissal action.
The court considered the plaintiff’s financial circumstances, the stage of the litigation, and the apparent merits of the claim.
Evidence indicated the plaintiff had limited financial resources and that his financial situation may have been affected by the defendants’ conduct in relocating him to Canada for employment.
The court found the claim possessed some merit and that requiring substantial security could effectively terminate the litigation and undermine access to justice.
In the circumstances, the court declined to order security for costs.
