Ronald Ellis

The appellant appealed his convictions for child pornography offences and possession of a prohibited weapon, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting two statements he made to police.

He claimed he was psychologically detained during the first statement at his workplace without receiving s. 10 Charter warnings, which tainted his subsequent warned statement at the police station.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the Grant framework and reasonably concluded the appellant was not detained during the initial questioning.

The appellant appealed his convictions for distributing and possessing child pornography, arguing his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was breached and three statements to police should have been excluded.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the first and third statements.

The court found the appellant was not detained during the first statement, and the third statement was not tainted by any potential breach during the second statement, as the appellant repeatedly declined to contact counsel before the third interview.

The appeal was dismissed.