R v Hart

Hart was the target of a Mr. Big sting after his daughters drowned. The SCC held that confessions obtained through Mr. Big operations are presumptively inadmissible and require a new common-law rule of admissibility based on probative value vs prejudicial effect plus an abuse-of-process review.

RCMP officers posing as members of a criminal organisation befriended Hart, gave him jobs, and ultimately obtained a confession to the murder of his twin daughters by suggesting he could only join the gang if he came clean. Hart confessed.

How should Mr. Big confessions be assessed?

Confession excluded. New trial ordered.

Confessions obtained through Mr. Big operations are presumptively inadmissible. The Crown must prove that the probative value of the confession outweighs its prejudicial effect, considering the circumstances in which it was made (length, intensity, inducements, vulnerability) and any markers of reliability (corroborated detail, holdback evidence). Separately, abuse-of-process review polices abusive police conduct.

Moldaver J recognised three concerns: unreliability of inducement-driven confessions, prejudice from extensive bad-character evidence about the criminal organisation lifestyle, and risk of abusive state conduct. The new framework places the burden on the Crown rather than the accused, reversing the prior position.

Reshaped a long-standing investigative technique. Mr. Big operations now require careful documentation and corroboration to meet the admissibility threshold. Mack and Bradshaw build on the Hart framework.

R v Hart, 2014 SCC 52, [2014] 2 SCR 544.

McLachlin CJ, LeBel J, Abella J, Rothstein J, Cromwell J, Moldaver J, Karakatsanis J, Wagner J