R. v. Tessier

Iacobucci J. -- This appeal comes to us as of right. Although the trial judge did not have the benefit of this Court’s reasons in R. v. Oickle, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3, 2000 SCC 38, in our view, the trial judge properly applied the required elements of the voluntariness test to conclude, in all the circumstances, that he had a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the confession. We agree with Deschênes J.A., dissenting in the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, that the appeal did not raise a question of law alone.

In our opinion, Deschênes J.A. properly and succinctly characterized the issue as follows:

As can be seen from the comments of the trial judge, he took the view that the question of voluntariness had to be decided on the basis of a consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the taking of the statements. In adopting the wider approach he did not, in my view, apply the wrong test. The appropriate test to be applied in this case was whether the evidence raised a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary by reason of a combination of oppressive conditions and inducements, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the taking of the impugned statements. This is precisely the test utilized by the trial judge.

((2001), 153 C.C.C. (3d) 361, 2001 NBCA 34, at p. 393)

Consequently, we would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, and restore the acquittal entered by the trial judge.