The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for assault.
The defence challenged the admissibility of the statement on the grounds that threats made by officers at the scene, including a threat to use a Taser, deprived the accused of his free will to choose whether to make a statement.
The court applied the contextual inquiry into voluntariness from R v Oickle and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.
The accused's change in demeanor from anger to calm was not the result of threats or coercive conduct, but rather the result of the calm persistence of the transporting officer.
The statement was admitted as evidence.
