Monica MacKenzie

In a criminal trial involving allegations of sexual misconduct against a minor, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to his former spouse and to his pastor were made to “persons in authority,” thereby requiring the Crown to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused argued that the statements were induced after both individuals threatened to contact police.

Applying the framework from Hodgson, the court held that the test requires both a subjective belief by the accused that the listener could influence the prosecution and an objectively reasonable basis for that belief grounded in a relationship with police or prosecutorial authorities.

The evidence did not establish that the accused believed either individual was acting as an agent of the police or prosecution.

Consequently, the recipients were not persons in authority and the confessions rule did not apply.

The statements were therefore admissible.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence seized during the execution of the warrant pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that the warrant authorizing the search of the residence was valid because the information from confidential informants, corroborated by police investigation, provided sufficient grounds for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant.

However, the warrant did not authorize the search of a motor vehicle located in the driveway, and the search of that vehicle constituted a warrantless search contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court concluded that the police acted in good faith and that the evidence, including a loaded handgun discovered in the vehicle, was highly probative.

The seized evidence was therefore admitted and the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.