2 total
Child's videotaped statement admitted under s. 715.1(1) despite delayed disclosure due to age and fear.
The Crown sought an order under section 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code to introduce a videotaped statement of a child complainant in a sexual assault trial.
The defendant opposed, arguing the statement was not made within a reasonable time and should be excluded under the court's residual discretion.
The court found the delay in reporting was reasonable given the child's age, the accused's position of authority, and the child's belief she would be arrested if she told the secret.
The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the statement and granted the order, subject to the complainant adopting the statement at trial.
Some police statements admitted; others excluded for violating right to silence and voluntariness.
In a murder prosecution, the Crown sought to admit multiple statements made by the accused during police interviews and at the scene of a medical emergency involving a child.
The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court conducted a voir dire examining voluntariness under the confessions rule and the accused’s right to silence.
Some statements were admitted where the accused attended voluntarily and spoke without coercion, while other statements were excluded where police interrogation ignored repeated assertions of the right to remain silent or involved oppressive questioning.
The ruling provides a contextual analysis of voluntariness and the interaction between the confessions rule and Charter protections.
