Roger Dietrich

During a murder trial, the court was required to determine the admissibility of a statement made by the accused to police after earlier statements had been excluded due to a breach of s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The defence argued the later statement was tainted by the earlier constitutional breach and was not voluntary.

Applying the analytical framework for tainted statements and the common law confessions rule, the court held that the earlier breach had been cured by intervening events, including the accused’s arrest for murder and multiple opportunities to consult counsel.

The court further found the police interview tactics did not constitute inducements or oppression and did not overbear the accused’s will.

The statement was proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was admissible.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to armed bank robberies committed in Windsor and four additional robberies in Toronto involving firearms, disguises, and violence against bank employees.

The parties jointly proposed a global sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment.

The court held that although a higher sentence in the range of 12 to 15 years would otherwise be fit given the seriousness and multiplicity of the offences, the joint submission did not meet the high threshold required to reject it.

The court also considered the application of the Truth in Sentencing Act and the proper credit for pre‑sentence custody under s. 719 of the Criminal Code.

Credit was granted at 1:1 for the period before the guilty pleas and 1.5:1 for the period after the pleas due to sentencing delay beyond the offenders’ control.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought to admit videotaped out‑of‑court statements made by a witness to undercover officers in a “Mr. Big” operation as substantive evidence under the principled hearsay exception.

The witness recanted or professed lack of memory during cross‑examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court held that although necessity was established, the Crown failed to demonstrate threshold reliability on a balance of probabilities.

The witness’s repeated claims of memory loss prevented meaningful cross‑examination and undermined the jury’s ability to assess reliability.

Additionally, the inducements and incentives inherent in the “Mr. Big” scenario raised serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the statements.

The videotaped statements were therefore ruled inadmissible as substantive evidence.

In a voir dire during a murder prosecution, the accused sought to exclude three police statements on the basis of Charter violations.

Police had told the accused he was being questioned in relation to a missing persons investigation when they in fact believed the investigation concerned homicides.

The court found this mischaracterization violated s. 10(a) of the Charter by failing to properly inform the accused of the reason for his detention.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the breach was serious, significantly affected the accused’s Charter-protected interests, and that exclusion would not undermine adjudication on the merits.

Statements given during the July 2008 interviews were excluded, while a later statement given after arrest for murder was ruled admissible.