A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility and voluntariness of statements made by the defendant to a police officer.
The defendant was charged with permitting operation of a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.
The defendant contended that his statements were involuntary because the officer presented him with two options: either the defendant would be charged with the regulatory offence or the defendant's brother would be charged with the criminal offence of taking a motor vehicle without the owner's consent.
The defendant also argued that the officer failed to provide Charter cautions.
The court found that the statements were voluntary because the two-option scenario was presented after the defendant had already made the inculpatory admissions, and therefore could not have induced those statements.
The court also found that no detention occurred and that the officer was not required to provide a caution at the time of the initial questioning.
