Nathaniel Spear-Balka

The Crown brought an application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month 'Mr. Big' undercover operation, as well as a subsequent post-arrest statement, in a trial for manslaughter and indignity to a human body.

The accused had admitted to undercover officers that the victim died of a drug overdose and that he buried her body.

Applying the framework from R. v. Hart, the court found that the probative value of the undercover statements outweighed their prejudicial effect, noting the lack of coercion and the presence of markers of reliability.

The court also found the post-arrest statement to be voluntary under the confessions rule, rejecting arguments that the police created an atmosphere of oppression or offered inducements.

Both statements were ruled admissible subject to editing for discreditable conduct.

The accused, charged with manslaughter, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from his cell phone and associated tower records, arguing his s. 8 Charter rights were breached when police seized his phone without a warrant following a polygraph test.

The court found that while the police had grounds to seize the phone, they created the exigent circumstances, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the phone's contents under s. 24(2), noting the police acted in good faith and the impact on the accused's privacy was minimal since the phone was not searched until a warrant was obtained.

The court also held that the tower records were not obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter and were admissible.

The Crown brought a motion to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct and ante-mortem hearsay statements in a trial for manslaughter.

The Crown sought to admit statements made by the deceased indicating she wanted to leave the accused and that he had previously choked her, as well as evidence of the accused's post-offence suicide attempt.

The court admitted the statements regarding the deceased's desire to leave the relationship and one specific recounting of a choking incident, finding them sufficiently reliable and probative of motive and animus.

Other hearsay statements regarding prior assaults were excluded due to insufficient reliability or excessive prejudicial effect.

The evidence of the suicide attempt was also ruled admissible.