The appellant appealed his convictions for child pornography offences and possession of a prohibited weapon, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting two statements he made to police.
He claimed he was psychologically detained during the first statement at his workplace without receiving s. 10 Charter warnings, which tainted his subsequent warned statement at the police station.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the Grant framework and reasonably concluded the appellant was not detained during the initial questioning.
