Voir dire regarding voluntariness of statements made by accused to police. Crown called only one witness, the officer who interviewed the accused. Issue of whether Crown had put forward sufficient evidence for the Court to assess “all surrounding circumstances” of the making of the statements.

Held: Statements not admissible.

There was no direct evidence of accused’s interactions with persons in authority for a 2 ¼ hour time “gap”, including the arrest, Charter and caution. In the video interview, the accused did not appear as someone whose will had been overborne. However, “[r]elying on such observations on the threshold question of whether sufficient evidence of the surrounding circumstances has been presented…risks reversing the onus of proof”: Holmes, 2002 OJ No 4178 (CA). Not every person in authority that the accused interacted with must testify, but as per Erven, [1979] 1SCR 926, Crown should call those who “might have been in a position to threaten or offer hope or advantage to the accused.” Crown did not meet its burden.

A. Urquhart– Defence Counsel