formed police officer. She also indicated
that he didnÆtÆ tell her not to answer. Although
Ms. N. made no reference to any particular
statutory compulsion, she did indicate that she
felt an obligation to respond to the questions of
a police officer and articulated at least a vague
notion that such compulsion flowed from her
general responsibilities as a drive having been
Justice Horkins (2001), in his decision in this case, noted that Ms. N. was seeking to have her roadside statements excluded on the basis that they were given as a result of statutory compulsion. Such an argument was inspired by the Supreme Court of Canada judgment in Regina v. White, which held that the principle of protection from self-incrimination guaranteed by Section 7 of the Charter is triggered where the Crown seeks to tender a statement which was given under compulsion of provincial statute.
Justice Horkins (2001) ultimately ruled that Ms. N. spoke to the police officer under an honest and reasonable belief
...