The Crown brought an application to admit videotaped statements made by two defendants following their arrest for firearms offences.
The defendants argued the statements were involuntary because the interviewing officer failed to inform them they would also be charged with being occupants of a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm.
One defendant also alleged he was assaulted by an officer and that the interviewing officer used inducements and trickery.
The court found that the defendants generally understood the serious jeopardy they faced regarding the firearms investigation, and that the failure to specify the occupant charge did not invalidate their waiver of rights.
The court also rejected the allegations of inducements, oppressive trickery, and the impact of the alleged assault, ruling the statements voluntary and admissible.