Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Criminal law - Youth - What procedural requirements should be followed when questioning a young person so as to determine if any special measures should be taken in order to ascertain that the young person clearly understands what his or her rights are under s. 146(2)? - Whether the test applied to s. 146(2) should be subjective or objective - Whether a young person’s past experience with the criminal process under the Youth Criminal Justice Act should be taken into account to determine if the young person understood his or her rights - What is the standard of proof for compliance under s. 146? - Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002, c. 1, s. 146.

L.T.H. was apprehended following a police chase. He was arrested for dangerous driving and was read his rights. A Constable went through the young offender statement form with L.T.H. In answer to the officer’s questions, L.T.H. stated that he did not want to call a lawyer or talk to a lawyer in private. Nor did he want to consult in private with a parent, an adult relative, or another appropriate adult, or to have them present while giving a statement or while being questioned. The Constable then read the waiver of rights form. After L.T.H. initialled and signed the form, the officer proceeded to interview him. When asked, at the end of the interview, if he wanted to contact his mother, L.T.H. declined. The mother of L.T.H. gave evidence at the voir dire. She testified that her son had a learning disorder, and that she told this to a police officer at the Dartmouth police station before L.T.H. was taken to the Halifax police station and questioned. She also testified that other times when she had been with her son during police questioning, he would look at her to explain the question. A Youth Court judge ruled that while L.T.H.’s statement was voluntary, it was not admissible because the Crown had not met its onus pursuant to s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It was determined that a police officer was required to ask the young person to explain, in his own words, what he understood each of his rights to mean and to explain the consequences of waiving those rights. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the verdict of acquittal and ordered a new trial.