To: Ana Bernal

From: Brittany, Colleen, & Cassandra

Date: March 11, 2021
Subject: Scenario Group Assignment

Scenario 1: A
We would agree that this argument would be successful. First, this would be successful because
the Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms s.8 indicates, everyone has the right to be
secure against unreasonable search or seizure.1 The day the police came into the school
without notice for their search, they violated s.8 because they had no reasonable grounds to
believe there were any drugs in the school the day the police came to visit. This section protects
people, not places, against unjustified intrusions on their privacy. 2 One, it was not authorized by
law. Two, the law was not reasonable, and three, the manner, in which the search was carried
out, was unreasonable. The police took the personal property of Jerry and his fellow students
without their consent. In some circumstances the interests may extend beyond those of
privacy; this case was not one of them. The students have an expectation of privacy, leaving
their items in the school gym would be an unreasonable seizure of their personal property and
violating their expectation of privacy. An important note, The Education Act, states the right to
search a locker would not justify searching a student’s property inside the locker, e.g., a
student’s backpack.3 The search of the backpack was warrantless which brings in case a prima
facie. This search and seizure of students’ backpacks failed to have sufficient evidence to
proceed moving forward with.

Scenario 2: A
In discussing the matter of the statement of the player being a confession or not we must begin
with the meaning of persons in authority and how they relate to confessions. The test for
determining a person in authority is whether the accused reasonably believed that the person

1 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.C. 1982, s.8.

2 Ibid
3 Unknown, “Student rights and responsibilities during searches” (2021), online: <url> [https://www.legalline.ca/legal-
answers/student-rights-and-responsibilities-during-interrogations-and-searches/]
was in a position to influence the prosecution against him. The case used to back up this test is
R v Hodgson, [1998] 2 SCR 449 at para 34. “Teachers, guidance counsellors, doctors, employers,
social workers and even parents may be persons in authority.” 4 The accused’s belief must be
honest and reasonable. The coercion and intimidation initiated by the teacher; Mr. MacNamara
constitutes a threat to the student which causes duress.

Confessions are defined as “statements made to a person in authority.” 5 In accordance with the
confession rule a confession is deemed inadmissible unless the crown can prove it to be
voluntary. For the statement to be considered voluntary, it must be free of threats or
promises.6 Statements that are not made voluntarily are inadmissible in court. The confession
rule was first established in 1914 in the case of The King v Ibrahim [1914} AC 599/PC. The rule
provides that the Crown is obliged to prove that a statement made to a person in authority was
voluntary. The accused cannot be placed under duress through fear of prejudice or hope that
advantage is held out by the person in authority.7 The modern confession rule comes from the
case of R v Oickle, [2000] 2 SCR 3, and modifies the Ibrahim Rule. This rule applies to persons in
authority and states: “the Crown has the obligation to establish a reasonable doubt that any
statement to a person in authority is voluntary in the circumstances by showing that the will of
the accused has not been overborne by:
a) threats or promise;
b) oppressive circumstances, and
c) lack of an operating mind.”

The Crown has the obligation to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there has not been
any police trickery that unfairly takes away the accused’s right to silence.” 8
To establish voluntariness a test exists that requires the accused to have a “free operating
mind.”9 The accused must know what he is saying and must also know that what he is saying
4 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c.11, pg. 210 at para 2.
5 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c. 11, pg. 210 at para 1.
6 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c. 11, pg. 206 at para 3.
7 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c.11, pg. 207 at para 1.
8 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c. 11, pg. 207 at para 3.
9 Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd edition, c. 11, pg. 208 at para 4.

Brittany, Colleen & Cassandra | 2

may be used against him. These rules are in place to ensure that confessions are voluntary thus
rendering them admissible. In the circumstance of our young team captain, it is our opinion
that he has indeed made a confession.

Scenario 2: B

Now knowing that the young man’s statement is indeed a confession we must discuss the
admissibility of the confessions.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c1, protects youth from the use of confessions. Section
146 (1) and (2)(a)(b)(i-iii), (2)(c)(i)(ii) outline the rules of admissibility of a statement made to an
authority. It explains that the statement must be voluntary and the person to whom the
statement was made must have clearly explained before the statement was made that:”
i) the young person is not obligated to make a statement,
ii) Any statement made may be used against him in a proceeding against him,
iii)The young person has a right to consult counsel and a parent, and
iv) Any statement of a young person is required to be made in the presence of counsel. 10

Section 146 (2)(c)(i)(ii) further expands on those statements. Section 146 (4)(a)(b) 11 explains
that a young person may waive rights to consult with counsel provided the waiver is recorded
on video or audiotape or be in writing stating that the young person has been informed that his
right to counsel is being waived. The Act, under section 146 (7) 12 refers to statements made
under duress. The team captain in our scenario made a statement to a person in authority
making his statement a confession. The student was then threatened with removal from the
school hockey team if he did not tell the truth or confess to allegations of drug use. That
statement made by the teacher, amounts to coercion thereby making the statement of the
student involuntary and inadmissible in court.

10 Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c1, s.146 (1), (2)-(2)(c)(iii)

11 Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c1, s.146 (4)(a)(b).
12 Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c1, s.146 (7).

Brittany, Colleen & Cassandra | 3

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms further affirms this statement and states under section 24
(2) that: “Where, in a proceeding under section (1) a court concludes that evidence was
obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any Rights or Freedoms guaranteed by this
charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all
circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice
in disrepute.”13

13 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.C. 1982, s.24 (2).

Brittany, Colleen & Cassandra | 4

 LEGISLATION

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.C. 1982, s.8.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, R.S.C. 1982, s.24 (2).
Youth Criminal Justice Act, SC 2002, c1, s.146.

JURISPRUDENCE
R v Hodgson, [1998] 2 SCR 449 at para 34.
R v Oickle, [2000] 2 SCR 3.
The King v Ibrahim [1914} AC 599/PC.

SECONDARY SOURCES
Michael Gulycz, Mary Ann Kelly & Doug Cochran, Rules of Evidence: A Practical Approach, 2nd
ed (Toronto, Canada, 2016) at c. 11.
Unknown, “Student rights and responsibilities during searches” (2021), online: <url>
[https://www.legalline.ca/legal-answers/student-rights-and-responsibilities-during-
interrogations-and-searches/]

Brittany, Colleen & Cassandra | 5