The Crown sought to admit the defendant's 911 call statements, where he confessed to "hurting someone," arguing the 911 operator was not a person in authority or, alternatively, that the statements were voluntary.

The defence argued the operator was a person in authority and the statements were involuntary due to the defendant's intoxication and emotional state, which prevented him from having an operating mind.

The court found the 911 operator was a person in authority but concluded, after a voir dire, that the defendant possessed an operating mind at the time of the call, making his statements voluntary and admissible.

The applicant, T. D., brought Charter applications to exclude evidence obtained by police, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the applications related to sections 8 and 9, finding the search warrants and arrest lawful.

However, the court found breaches of section 10(b) due to an unreasonable delay in facilitating access to duty counsel and a failure by police to "hold off" from asking investigative questions before the applicant consulted counsel.

Applying the Grant analysis under section 24(2), the court determined that admitting the evidence found in the applicant's car would negatively impact public confidence in the justice system, and therefore excluded it.