Thomas Wiley

This decision addresses the voluntariness of statements made by two accused, J.D. and D.B., to police in a human trafficking case.

The Crown sought to admit statements from both.

J.D. argued his statement was involuntary due to fear from a forceful arrest, while D.B. argued hers was involuntary due to the absence of a primary caution.

The court found J.D.'s statement voluntary, concluding that the force used during his arrest was not excessive, he was properly cautioned, and he maintained an operating mind.

However, D.B.'s statement was deemed involuntary because she was never given a primary caution, was not fully informed of all charges when she spoke to counsel, and her understanding of the recording's purpose was flawed, raising reasonable doubt about her awareness of the stakes.

The Crown sought leave to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct against the accused, J.D. and D.B., in a criminal trial involving charges of procuring, exercising control, receiving financial benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, considering issues of credibility, state of mind, and narrative.

The court granted leave for most of the requested evidence, including assaults, threats, and drug supply as means of control, and the involvement of other escorts, but dismissed the admission of evidence regarding a belief in a firearm and details of a romantic relationship due to excessive prejudice.

The court also found no air of reality to the defence's collusion argument.

A young person was charged with sexual assault and wearing a disguise with intent following an incident on June 28, 2013, in Mississauga.

The sole issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the masked perpetrator.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification from the victim and a neighbour who recognized the accused, corroborated by security footage, physical evidence (a mask found near the building), and the accused's own statements to police.

The defence challenged the reliability of eyewitness identification, citing poor time perception and limited observation conditions.

The court found the identification evidence credible and reliable, particularly the neighbour's recognition evidence based on three years of daily contact.

The court rejected the accused's denials and found him guilty on both counts.