S.7

Question 1

R. v. Veltman, 2022 ONSC 3218

Answer 1

No right to a Preliminary Hearing / No Breach

Question 2

Singh [2007] SCJ No. 48

Answer 2

If the Crown proves voluntariness BRD -> no Charter violation of RTS in respect to the same statement.

The converse holds true as well.

Question 3

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 SCR 151

Answer 3

Police are entitled to use legitimate means of persuasion, short of depriving a detainee of the ability to choose to speak, without being found to have breached the s. 7 right to silence. (130)

Question 4

Peel Regional Police Service v. Latanya Grant, 2022 ONSC 287

Answer 4

• Order is valid -> Can it be proved invalid?
o There is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
o No self-incrimination – she’s not a suspect if she was it would be a “forceful argument”.

• Assistance Orders and SW go hand in hand when required to “give force” to the warrant.

Question 5

R. v. Janeiro, 2022 ONCA 118

Answer 5

Lost Evidence

o Can draw negative inference from absence of lost security tape (wouldn’t stay the charges).
o Finding of breach is standard UNLESS Crown can show satisfactory explanation of the loss/no abuse of process (can do so by establishing that evidence has not been lost by “unacceptable negligence” (more than mere negligence).
o Importance/relevance of evidence is also a concern.

o ALT: Can succeed even if there IS a satisfactory explanation for the loss or destruction of evidence if they establish that the lost evidence is so important that its loss undermines the fairness of the trial (R. v. La).

o NB: Stay is an EXTRORDINARY remedy for lost evidence. (111)

Question 6

R. v. Musara 2022 ONSC 2835

Answer 6

Failure of police to record certain interviews =/= lost evidence.

1. No evidence was “lost” by the failure of the police to take a video recorded statement of S.D. in these two instances.
2. The defence is not entitled to have the police conduct an investigation in a certain fashion to avoid a s. 7 violation