If I am wrong in this regard, the presence or absence of a caution is merely a factor to consider in determining the voluntariness of a statement: Singh, at para. 31; Boudreau v. The King, 1949 CanLII 26 (SCC), [1949] S.C.R. 262. As noted by Watt J.A. in E.B., at para. 88, “the absence of the standard caution is only one factor to be considered in the voluntariness analysis - just as the presence of such a caution does not automatically lead to the conclusion that a statement is voluntary”. The absence of a caution here, even if one was required, did not render an otherwise voluntary statement involuntary.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.