S. Graham

In a pre-trial voir dire, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused at his home and at the police station following his arrest for importing opium.

The accused sought to exclude the statements, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The court found the statement at the home was a spontaneous utterance made before the police could complete the caution, and the statement at the station was voluntary despite the lack of a secondary caution.

The court also held there was no change in jeopardy that would trigger a right to a second consultation with counsel.

The statements were ruled admissible.

During a trial for importing drugs, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers at the airport.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements made by both accused due to incomplete and unreliable officer notes that lacked context.

Furthermore, the court found that the officers breached one of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by unreasonably delaying her opportunity to contact counsel.

The statements were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

A dispute among siblings arose regarding ownership and disposition of a Florida condominium held in joint tenancy between an elderly incapable mother and one daughter.

The court considered whether a 2004 transfer creating the joint tenancy conveyed a beneficial interest or was subject to a resulting trust, applying the principles in Pecore v. Pecore.

The court held that the gratuitous transfer raised a presumption of resulting trust that the daughter failed to rebut, leaving the beneficial ownership with the mother.

The court ordered that the property be sold to fund the incapable person’s care, subject to the daughter’s right to purchase it at a price reflecting reimbursement for certain renovation expenses.

Costs were awarded to the opposing siblings who were substantially successful.

Application for judicial interim release of a young person charged with serious gun and drug-related offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown and defence agreed on release conditions with a named surety (a senior pastor), but the court found the surety unsuitable and the proposed conditions inadequate to address the established risk of re-offence.

The court dismissed the application and ordered continued detention, finding that the surety lacked meaningful relationship with the youth and that the home environment presented unresolved supervision concerns.