View source for Voluntariness (Case Digests)

{{LevelZero}}
{{HeaderEvidenceCases}}

==Voluntariness==
{{seealso|Voluntariness}}

{{SCaseHeaderResult}}

{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|George|hx93r|2019 BCSC 106 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Duncan J}} | involuntary | }}

{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Townsend|gxqgq|2017 ONSC 1204 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Varpio J}} | voluntary | }}

{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|Wilkinson|fxctc|2013 SKCA 46 (CanLII)}}{{perSKCA| Caldwell JA}} |involuntary| 17.5 hours of detention before interview. Relevant officers did not testify and not clear on whether given right to counsel for trafficking charge.}}

{{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|WB|fvr3m|2013 SKPC 9 (CanLII)}}{{perSKPC|Tomkins J}} | voluntary | video statement from 20 year old re sexual offences}}

| {{CanLIIR-S|Mannell|fqw6j|2012 ONSC 2139 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Glass J}} || voluntary || video statement with polygraph confession admitted
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Mohamed|frjk3|2012 ONSC 1784 (CanLII)}}{{perONSC|Pattillo J}} || voluntary||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Ejigu|ftpmc|2012 BCSC 1673 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Myers J}}  ||voluntary ||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Holt|fs669|2012 BCSC 1121 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Dickson J}} || involuntary||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Davis|fnn9q|BCSC 1472 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Hyslop J}} || voluntary ||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Smith|2b0vr|2009 ONCJ 737 (CanLII)}}{{perONCJ|Brophy J}} || involuntary || failure to caution before taking statement
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Van Ieperen|22rcs|2009 BCSC 350 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Dillon J}} || involuntary|| inducement found; statement involuntary
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Fagan|1vm1g|2008 NLTD 15 (CanLII)}}{{perNLSC|Harrington J}} || voluntary ||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Briscoe|1qqh3|2007 ABQB 135 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Burrows J}} || voluntary ||
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Lehman|5r0j|2000 ABPC 43 (CanLII)}}{{perABPC|Allen J}} || voluntary ||

|-
| {{SCaseResult|{{CanLIIR-S|George|hx93r|2019 BCSC 106 (CanLII)}}{{perBCSC|Duncan J}} | involuntary | }}

{{SCaseEnd}}


==Mr Big==

{{SCaseHeaderResult}}

|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Magoon|gjcg9 |2015 ABQB 351 (CanLII)}}{{perABQB|Nation J}} || voluntary || "a six-year-old child’s father and the father’s partner, Ms. Magoon, were charged and convicted of the child’s murder. The evidence included admissions made by both accused to undercover police officers. The father was the target of a Mr. Big operation and became involved in some fictional criminal activities. Ms. Magoon was befriended by an undercover police officer playing the part of the girlfriend of one of the other undercover officers who was part of the Mr. Big operation. She and Ms. Magoon went shopping, to movies, out to dinner, and to a spa together. The trial judge applied a Hart analysis to the admissions from both the father and Ms. Magoon. On appeal, no issue was raised about the application of the Hart principles to Ms. Magoon’s admissions." [https://canlii.ca/t/k5n8h#par32] }} 

|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Wingert|j9bzx|2020 ABCA 304 (CanLII)}}{{TheCourtABCA}} || || "an undercover officer befriended a suspected murderer and promised to possibly take him into their group without indicating what this group did. The undercover officer provided moderately remunerative piecework to the accused. During a 6-hour road trip, the undercover officer and the accused discussed many topics, one of which was bad things they had done. During this conversation, the accused admitted to killing a 19-year-old drug runner. There was no criminal organization, no threats of violence, the only inducements were the legitimate piecework, and the accused was not particularly vulnerable." [https://canlii.ca/t/k5n8h#par33] }}

|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Klaus|hnzzk|2017 ABQB 721 (CanLII)}} || ||"two accused, Mr. Klaus and Mr. Frank, both provided confessions. Mr. Klaus was targeted by a Mr. Big operation, confessed to his part in the murder and implicated Mr. Frank as the individual who performed the killings. The police never asked or pressured Mr. Klaus to contact Mr. Frank but Mr. Klaus contacted Mr. Frank to corroborate his story and Mr. Frank met with the undercover officer. During that meeting, the undercover officer expressly told Mr. Frank he would receive nothing from the organization for talking to him and that he could leave at any time. He was also told that if he decided to leave, he would not have to worry about ever seeing them again. Mr. Frank then confessed to the undercover officer that he shot and killed the three victims." [https://canlii.ca/t/k5n8h#par35] }}

|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|Kelly||2017 ONCA 621 (CanLII)}} || ||  "the accused was convicted of the murder of his common-law spouse. After the body was discovered, the police interviewed the accused but no charges were laid. Years later, an undercover police officer played the role of a private investigator retained by an insurance company to inform the accused that he was the beneficiary of an insurance policy on the victim’s life and paid him $3000. The undercover officer met with the accused later and told him of two further life insurance policies totaling $571,000 for which he was the beneficiary but said they had been flagged for non-payment because the accused was suspected of murdering the insured. The undercover officer proposed an insurance scam where his terminally ill friend would take responsibility for the killing if the accused provided details of the killing so the friend could give the police a false confession. The accused agreed and eventually confessed to the killing. ... The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the circumstances of the sting scheme in Kelly was missing the most offensive tactics of a Mr. Big operation. ...The court reviewed the reliability of the confession and determined it was admissible."}}
|-
| {{CanLIIR-S|RK||2016 BCSC 552 (CanLII)}} || || "a victim was murdered and his body was found on the grounds of an elementary school. Two students, a male and female who attended the school at the time of the shooting, were suspects but there was insufficient evidence to arrest them. Years later, the female was the subject of a Mr. Big operation which lasted five months with 52 scenarios. The female accused was drawn into the fictitious world of the criminal organization and confessed to the crime. She implicated the accused male, RK, as the shooter. The female took the undercover officers to meet RK who confessed to the killing as well. The Crown took the position that the Hart framework did not apply to RK but submitted that the defence could argue abuse of process. The trial judge found that the Hart framework was appropriate in the circumstances. ... In RK the trial judge recognized that both the female and RK were identified as targets of the Mr. Big operation from its inception. The police gathered a body of information about RK including aspects of his personal life during their initial investigation and decided to first focus on the female in the typical manner and then use her at some point to draw RK in as well. The trial judge recognized that RK was not recruited into the organization in the typical manner and was not offered inducements to the same extent as the female. ...the trial judge recognized that RK’s confession came about within the confines of the fictitious world created by the police. RK’s recruitment was to help the fictitious criminal organization cover-up the involvement in the murder by the female. The members of the criminal organization and the female pressed RK to provide information, holding out the inducement of protecting him from criminal charges. While RK was not exposed to the criminal side of the organization, the trial judge found he was aware of it and told of the organization’s power and influence to make criminal charges go away. ...The trial judge further recognized that RK’s dealings with the undercover officers was for a very short duration and for a limited purpose but concluded that the nature of the state’s interaction with RK fell within the auspices of a Mr. Big operation. She further concluded that the concerns identified in Hart arose with respect to the undercover officers’ interactions with RK (paras 791-796)."}}

{{SCaseEnd}}