The accused, charged with historical sexual offences including gross indecency and indecent assault, contested the voluntariness of a statement he made to police.
He argued that he was not properly informed of the reasons for his arrest or his right to counsel under s. 10(a) and (b) of the Charter, as the police initially only mentioned one complainant and used the term 'sexual assault' rather than the specific historical charges.
The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the accused, an intelligent man who was aware of the historical complaints, understood the extent of his jeopardy.
The court concluded that the Crown proved the voluntariness of the statement beyond a reasonable doubt and ruled the statement admissible.