What is the test for a finding that a statement is voluntary?

In addition to a finding that a statement is voluntary, according to s. 56(1), the Act, in s. 56(2) requires that a number of pre-conditions be complied with before an oral or written statement made by a young person to a person in authority can be admitted into evidence. Section 56(4) permits a youth to waive those preconditions, provided the waiver is on video tape or in writing, signed by the youth. Cory J. R v. J. (J.T.) 1990 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 755, made it clear that the provisions of the section must be strictly adhered to when he said this: Section 56 itself exists to protect all young people, particularly the shy and the frightened, the nervous and the naive. Yet justice demands that the law be applied uniformly in all cases. The requirements of s. 56 must be complied with whether the authorities are dealing with the nervous and naive or the street-smart and worldly-wise. The statutory pre-conditions for the admission of a statement made by a young person cannot be bent or relaxed because the authorities are convinced, on the basis of what they believe to be cogent evidence, of the guilt of the suspect. As soon as the requirements are relaxed because of a belief in the almost certain guilt of a young person, they will next be relaxed in the case of those whom the authorities believe are probably guilty, and thereafter in the case of a suspect who might possible be guilty but whose past conduct, in the opinion of those in authority, is such that he or she should be found guilty of something for the general protection of society. Principles of fairness require that the section be applied uniformly to all without regard to the characteristics of the particular young person. It is just and appropriate that young people be provided with additional safeguards before their statements should be admitted. Section 56(2) to (6) inclusive specify the additional protection which must be provided to all young people under the age of eighteen. The Application of s. 56(2) When considering the application of s. 56(2), it must be remembered that it begins with the admonition that no statement given by a young person to a person in authority is admissible unless the subsequent requirements enunciated are complied with. A brief review of those requirements shows that they are eminently fair and reasonable. In that case, the court rejected the suggestion that “substantial compliance” with s. 56(2) permitted admissibility of the statement. Section 56(4) was not considered in that case.