In Clarkson v. R., 1986 CanLII 61 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383, 50 C.R. (3d) 289, 25 C.C.C. (3d) 207, 26 D.L.R. (4th) 493, 19 C.R.R. 209, 69 N.B.R. (2d) 40, 177 A.P.R. 40, 66 N.R. 114, it was held, per Wilson J., that in order for a waiver to be effective, the detainee must truly appreciate the right and know the consequences of giving up that right. The test of "knowledge of the consequences" contemplates that the accused must know something of the risk in forfeiting the right. Wilson J. went on to say that the fact that the accused makes a statement is not, by that fact, a valid waiver.
"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.