L. Mehkeri

The Crown sought a voluntariness ruling regarding an exculpatory video interview conducted with the accused following his arrest for sexual offences against his step-son.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to drug intoxication, a public arrest, an improper strip search, and police inducements.

The court applied the confessions rule and found that, despite the accused's complaints about the arrest and search, he possessed an operating mind and was not deprived of his ability to choose whether to speak.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit after the trial judge excluded breathalyzer evidence for a Charter breach.

The trial judge had found the accused was arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 of the Charter when police blocked his vehicle in a private parking lot after he had exited a highway, concluding the Highway Traffic Act random stop authority did not apply.

The Superior Court agreed that the accused was not a “driver” under the Highway Traffic Act once parked on private property.

However, the court held that the detention was nevertheless lawful under the common law police power to investigate impaired driving risks, even on private property adjacent to a roadway.

As there was no Charter breach, the Crown’s appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for a new trial.

During a trial for aggravated assault and assault arising from an altercation at a stag and doe party, the accused brought a Charter s. 7 application seeking a stay of proceedings.

They argued that the Crown's continued prosecution amounted to an abuse of process because the Crown's main witness was contradicted by other Crown witnesses.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's decision to proceed did not amount to flagrant impropriety and that it is the role of the trier of fact to assess conflicting evidence.