M. Bloch

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of statements he made to police following his arrest.

The accused, who was self-represented with the assistance of amicus curiae, argued that his statements were involuntary due to his mental illness, vulnerability, and police inducements involving cigarettes.

The court found that the accused had an operating mind, understood his rights, and made a conscious decision to speak to police.

The court concluded that the police conduct was professional, there were no oppressive circumstances or impermissible inducements, and the statements were proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant was stopped by police in a park while they were investigating a robbery.

The police claimed the applicant acted nervously and had a heavy pocket, leading them to believe he had a gun.

A struggle ensued, during which the applicant was beaten by multiple officers, and a handgun was found in his pocket.

The court found the officers' evidence to be contradictory and unreliable, concluding they had no reasonable grounds for the arrest or search.

The court held that the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the applicant's rights.

During a second degree murder jury trial, the defence applied for an inquiry under s. 644 of the Criminal Code to determine whether a juror should be discharged due to alleged conduct suggesting partiality, including turning away during the accused’s testimony and making gestures during closing submissions.

The court held that the alleged behaviour did not meet the high threshold required to justify an inquiry into a juror’s fitness.

Juror conduct must raise a serious issue regarding the ability to perform duties before the court interferes with jury secrecy.

The court emphasized that jurors may form provisional views during trial provided they remain open to deliberation.

The application for an inquiry and the related request for a mistrial were dismissed.