Wm. Thompson

During a trial for impaired operation of a vessel causing death, a voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of statements the accused made to a breath technician at the hospital.

The accused argued that the lack of a secondary caution before questioning during the breath testing procedure rendered the statements involuntary, as he might have believed he was compelled to answer.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the statements were voluntary, spontaneous, and not the product of oppression or coercion.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death after a canoe capsized, resulting in the death of an eight-year-old boy.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking to exclude breath test results, blood sample analysis, and statements, alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the accused was not detained when initially questioned at the hospital, the ASD demand was made forthwith, the right to counsel was properly implemented, hospital staff did not act as police agents in drawing blood, and the search warrant for medical records and the blood sample was valid.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death, operating a vessel with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood, dangerous operation of a vessel, and criminal negligence causing death.

The central issue was whether a canoe constitutes a "vessel" under Part VIII of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the term "vessel" includes canoes and other vessels propelled exclusively by muscular power.

The decision considered statutory interpretation principles, legislative history, federal maritime legislation, and the purpose of the Criminal Code provisions protecting public safety on Canadian waterways.