Steven Hinkson

The accused, charged with kidnapping, robbery, and attempted murder, applied under s. 7 and s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude statements he made to undercover police officers placed in his cell after his arrest.

The accused had previously exercised his right to silence.

The court applied the Hebert framework and found that the undercover officers did not actively elicit the statements or engage in the functional equivalent of an interrogation.

The accused spoke voluntarily and freely to his cellmates.

The application to exclude the statements was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter and challenge the voluntariness of a statement.

The accused argued that a brief interaction with police in a stairwell months before the murder constituted an arbitrary detention, and that obtaining his phone number from Ontario Works violated his s. 8 rights.

The court found that the stairwell encounter was a brief, consensual interaction that did not amount to a detention, and the statement was voluntary.

The court also held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone number obtained from Ontario Works.

The applications were dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible.

The accused, charged with homicide, brought an application to adduce evidence that a third party was the true perpetrator.

The defence argued the alternate suspect had opportunity, motive, propensity, and was identified as the shooter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no sufficient connection between the alternate suspect and the crime, as the evidence for opportunity, motive, propensity, and identification was seriously lacking or completely absent.

The accused brought a motion under s. 629 of the Criminal Code challenging the jury panel on the basis that the jury roll for the Thunder Bay district was not representative due to inadequate inclusion of First Nations persons living on reserves.

The motion relied on prior decisions criticizing the process for obtaining band lists and argued that insufficient changes had been made to address systemic underrepresentation.

The court reviewed evidence regarding steps taken by the Ministry of the Attorney General and local court officials, including revised procedures, outreach to band councils, offers to meet with communities, and efforts to clarify Privacy Act concerns.

Applying jurisprudence on representativeness and the sheriff’s duty of reasonable diligence under the Juries Act, the court held that reasonable efforts had been made despite continued refusals by some band councils to provide lists.

The accused failed to establish partiality or misconduct by the sheriff.