CASE STUDY: Statement Found Involuntary & Inadmissible

In this matter, one of the most important criminal cases in 2025, our client, Mr. K, was investigated in connection with serious allegations arising from unexplained injuries sustained by his infant child. The investigation began following a referral to child protection authorities (CAS) and police, after pediatric medical professionals identified multiple fractures in the child, prompting a criminal investigation into the cause of the injuries. Both parents were interviewed during the early stages of the investigation, and Mr. K voluntarily participated in a police interview at a hospital setting. The police interview took place while Mr. K was not under arrest, and before any charges were laid. The interaction was recorded, and Mr. K was questioned extensively about the circumstances surrounding his child’s injuries. Several months later, Mr. K was arrested and charged. Central to Mr. Dhaliwal’s case was the Crown’s attempt to rely on statements obtained during the earlier police interview. Given the severity of the allegations and the potential consequences, Mr. Dhaliwal brought a pre-trial application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, challenging the admissibility of Mr. K.’s statement to police on the basis that it was not voluntary and was obtained in violation of Mr. K.’s constitutional rights.

The primary goal of the defence was to protect Mr. K.’s constitutional rights and to prevent the Crown from relying on statements obtained in unfair circumstances that did not meet the legal standards required by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, the defence sought to ensure that the Court closely examined whether Mr. K.’s participation in the police interview was truly voluntary and whether his rights had been adequately respected, especially where an individual is effectively treated as a suspect, even if not formally arrested or detained at that point. A further objective was to prevent unfair prejudice arising from the use of statements obtained at a time when Mr. K had not been formally detained, arrested, or clearly advised of the potential legal consequences of speaking with police, despite the inherently stressful and emotional context of a child-injury investigation.

Mr. Dhaliwal presented an evidence-driven Charter application challenging the voluntariness of the statement, grounded in the circumstances of the police interview and the information already known to investigators at the time Mr. K was questioned. Although police maintained that Mr. K was not a suspect, the defence demonstrated that, objectively, suspicion had clearly been established. Medical information known to the police before the interview pointed strongly toward non-accidental injury. The range of potential caregivers of the infant child was extremely limited, and police questioning suggested direct culpable involvement by Mr. K. Despite this, police failed to properly deliver the primary caution required to protect his right to silence.

There were several critical deficiencies in the interview process, including the failure to advise Mr. K that anything he said could be used against him in court, the failure to confirm that he understood his right not to speak, and the failure to inform him that the interview was being recorded. Through cross-examination, Mr. Dhaliwal challenged the credibility of the investigating officer and exposed inconsistencies between his testimony and the recorded evidence. It was argued that these were not minor technical errors, but fundamental failures that deprived Mr. K of the ability to make an informed and voluntary decision about whether to speak to the police. Mr. Dhaliwal highlighted the vulnerability of a parent being questioned in a hospital setting about a critically injured child, and how that context heightened the risk of psychological pressure, even in the absence of physical detention itself.

In May 2025, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a written decision addressing the voluntariness of Mr. K.’s statement, determining that it was, in fact, involuntary and inadmissible. The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the interview and the applicable Charter principles governing such police-accused interactions. The ruling represented a significant development in the defence of the case, reinforcing the requirement that police interviews, particularly in sensitive and high-stakes investigations, must meet strict constitutional standards before statements can be admitted into evidence. As a result, the Crown was prohibited from relying on Mr. K.’s recorded statement. The Court’s decision affirmed the importance of meaningful Charter protections and careful legal oversight where the Crown seeks to rely on statements obtained outside of a formal arrest context. This matter reflects the diligent andstrategic advocacy by Mr. Dhaliwal and underscores the critical role of Charter litigation in protecting the rights of individuals facing serious criminal allegations.