2 total
Statements to spouse and friends did not trigger the confessions rule.
On a preliminary voluntariness voir dire in a sexual assault prosecution, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to his spouse and two friends were made to persons in authority.
Applying the confessions-rule framework from Hodgson and related authorities, the court held the defence failed to establish an air of reality to the contention that any of the three civilians could reasonably be perceived as acting on behalf of police or prosecution or as capable of influencing the criminal process.
The chronology was significant because the impugned statements were made before police had been contacted.
The Crown therefore was not required to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt as a precondition to admissibility.
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample due to frail evidence and inadequate opportunity to comply.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, arising from a single motor vehicle collision on October 26, 2016 in Milton, Ontario.
The Crown proceeded summarily.
The trial addressed two main issues: whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for the failure to provide a breath sample charge.
The court found that the Crown failed to prove both charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.
