criminal
The Right to Remain Silent in Canada: What It Really Means
03 October, 2025
“You have the right to remain silent.” Most of us have heard this line in movies and TV shows. But behind the drama, this right is a real and fundamental part of Canadian law – one that can have a profound impact if you ever find yourself dealing with the police. Why does the right to silence matter so much? What does it actually allow you to do (or not do), and what can the police legally do in response? Let’s explore the right to remain silent in Canada in a clear, narrative way, cutting through the legal jargon to explain how it works for ordinary Canadians.
Imagine you’re being questioned about a crime. Your heart is racing. You remember that you don’t have to say anything. This isn’t just common sense – it’s enshrined in our law. In Canada, the right to silence is protected both by longstanding common law rules and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under section 7 of the Charter, everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person – and the Supreme Court has said that included in those basic rights is the right to choose whether or not to speak to authorities. In plain terms, you can’t be forced to incriminate yourself. The idea is that confessions should be voluntary and not the result of coercion. This principle is sometimes called the “voluntariness” rule, and it’s a cornerstone of our justice system. If the police do get a statement from you, courts will scrutinize how they got it: Were there threats or promises? Were the conditions of interrogation inhumane? Did you understand what you were saying and who you were saying it to? Did the police use tricks so extreme that they would shock the community? These are the kinds of questions judges ask to decide if a confession was truly voluntary. Any statement that isn’t voluntary – for example, if it was beaten or bullied out of someone – cannot be used in court.
Now, knowing you have the right to silence is one thing. Using it is another. The law makes it clear that when you’re detained or arrested, you don’t have to answer questions. In fact, upon arrest the police must inform you of two key rights: your right to consult a lawyer (that’s guaranteed by section 10(b) of the Charter ) and your right to not give a statement. Police officers in Canada typically issue a caution along the lines of: “You are not obliged to say anything. Anything you do say may be used as evidence.” This warning isn’t just there for show – it’s meant to remind you that you can stay quiet and that speaking could have consequences.
So, what happens if you decide to stay silent? Here is where reality might depart from what we see on TV. In American crime dramas, once a suspect says “I’m not talking” or “I want a lawyer,” the interrogation often stops. In Canada, the dynamic is a bit different. You absolutely have the right to refuse to answer questions, but the police are generally allowed to keep asking. The Supreme Court of Canada confronted this issue head-on in R. v. Singh, a 2007 case. Jagrup Singh was a murder suspect who told the police 18 times that he didn’t want to talk. The officers nevertheless continued to question him, gently but persistently, until Singh eventually made some incriminating statements. Singh’s lawyer argued that this persistent questioning violated his right to silence. The case made it to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Singh’s rights were not violated. In a nutshell, the Court said the Charter’s section 7 right to silence doesn’t mean police have to stop talking to you entirely. There is no “right not to be spoken to” by officers. As long as your statements are voluntary – meaning the police haven’t broken the rules by threatening you or denying you basic comforts or legal counsel – they can keep trying to get you to talk. They can repeat questions, appeal to your conscience, even lie about evidence they have, and that alone isn’t illegal. This may surprise people, but the idea is that you still control what you say. The police just aren’t required to walk away and give up.
Does that make the right to silence an empty promise? Not at all. It just means that your silence is a choice you might have to stick to with some resolve. Think of it this way: the law gives you a protective shield – but you need to hold it up. The police might test your resolve, but they can’t force you to speak. And if you don’t speak? You cannot be punished just for keeping quiet. In legal terms, exercising your right to silence isn’t supposed to be used as evidence of guilt. In fact, at trial the prosecutor cannot point to your silence during police questioning as proof that you must have something to hide. Our system acknowledges that there are many reasons an innocent person might choose not to talk – fear, shock, advice of counsel, or just the simple recognition that it’s wise to let the dust settle first.
It’s also important to know what the police can’t do when trying to get information. They cannot threaten or violence you into talking, nor can they offer concrete rewards or leniency in exchange for a confession (e.g. “Confess now and you can go home”) – promises like that would make any resulting statement suspect. If they cross the line – say, by denying you food, water, or sleep, or by not letting you speak to a lawyer when you ask – then whatever you finally say might be tossed out by a judge as involuntary. A landmark case called R. v. Oickle in 2000 set out a clear test for this. In Oickle, the Supreme Court listed factors to determine if a confession is voluntary, including the presence of threats or inducements, the atmosphere of the interrogation (was it oppressive?), the mental state of the suspect, and the nature of any tricks the police used. Police can use some trickery – they’re allowed to be sneaky to a point – but they can’t go so far that it “shocks the community.” For example, an officer pretending to be a fellow inmate to get you to talk is a grey area the courts have looked at closely. This actually happened in another major case, R. v. Hebert (1990). Neal Hebert was arrested, invoked his right to silence after consulting a lawyer, and then found himself in a cell with an undercover officer posing as a chatty cellmate. Hebert let slip some incriminating details to this “cellmate.” The Supreme Court ruled that even though Hebert wasn’t literally forced to speak, the police had undermined his right to silence by tricking him in this way after he had asserted his wish to stay quiet. The statements were thrown out. In short, the police cannot actively subvert your choice to remain silent through deceit once you’ve made that choice clear. Your silence, once asserted, should be meaningful – they can’t just work around it by indirect interrogation methods that violate your free will.
Let’s dispel a few common misconceptions about the right to silence. First, some people think that if you confidently declare “I’m exercising my right to silence,” the police must immediately stop all questioning. As we’ve seen, that’s not exactly true in Canada – the onus is on you to actually remain silent, and the officers are allowed to continue attempting to elicit a response (within lawful bounds). Another misconception is that staying silent will make you look guilty. You might worry that a judge or jury will think, “Why didn’t they protest their innocence if they were truly innocent?” But in court, the fact that you didn’t give a statement to police isn’t admissible to prove guilt. Jurors are instructed (and judges are well aware) that silence is a protected right and not evidence of anything. It’s also worth noting that if you do choose to speak to police, you don’t get to bargain about what stays off the record. People sometimes say things like, “Okay, I’ll tell you off the record…” to an officer. There is no “off the record” with police – anything you say can potentially be used unless a specific legal exception applies. The safer assumption is that every word is on the record. And if English or French isn’t your first language or you have trouble understanding, you have the right to an interpreter to ensure you know what’s being asked – another protection to make sure that if you do speak, you’re doing so knowingly.
Another widespread notion comes from American TV: the idea that if the police don’t read you your rights (the “Miranda warning,” as it’s known in the US), you can’t be prosecuted. In Canada, police do have to inform you of your right to counsel and usually will caution you about your right to silence when you’re arrested or detained. If they fail to inform you of your Charter rights (for example, not telling you about your right to a lawyer under section 10(b)), it can lead to any statement you give being excluded later. But lack of a warning doesn’t automatically void an entire case – it mainly affects whether your statements can be used. Also, outside of a detention / arrest context, police generally don’t have to advise you of the right to silence; they might casually ask questions during an investigation. You’re still free to decline to answer, though. Keep in mind, if you’re not detained (you’re free to go), you don’t have an obligation to stick around for questioning at all. Politely asking “Am I free to leave?” can clarify whether you must stay or if you can walk away. If you are free to leave, you also are free not to talk. If you’re not free to leave (you’re being detained or arrested), then you should be given the Charter warning and you still don’t have to talk – but you do have to go with the officers.
It’s also crucial to differentiate between the pre-trial right to silence and the right to silence at trial. The Charter explicitly protects you in court with section 11(c), which says that if you’re charged with an offence, you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. In practical terms, no one can force an accused person to take the stand at their own trial. This is why you’ll see some defendants testify and others simply sit quietly through the proceedings; it’s their choice. The jury (or judge) can’t interpret an accused’s decision not to testify as proof of guilt – the law forbids it. This trial right is the flipside of the same coin: from the police station to the courtroom, our system tries to ensure that the government has to prove the case without making you prove it for them out of your own mouth.
So, what’s the realistic advice for an ordinary Canadian? If you ever find yourself in a situation where police are asking you questions – whether you’ve been pulled over, taken to a station, or just approached on the street – remember that silence is a lawful, viable option. In most cases, experienced lawyers actually advise people to stay quiet and get legal advice before deciding to say anything. Emotions and adrenaline in the moment can lead you to blurt out things that aren’t helpful, or to agree with suggestions from interrogators just to end the stress. Even innocent people can inadvertently say something that gets misunderstood or taken out of context. Exercising your right to silence gives you a chance to regroup and make informed decisions. You can politely say something like, “I don’t want to answer any questions right now,” or simply remain quiet. If you’ve been detained or arrested, you should also explicitly ask to speak to a lawyer – the police must give you that opportunity without undue delay. A lawyer will almost always remind you of your right to not talk and will often communicate to police on your behalf that you won’t be giving a statement. This isn’t being uncooperative in a legal sense; it’s protecting yourself. It’s your right.
Of course, choosing silence doesn’t mean the issue goes away. The police might continue their investigation, gather other evidence, or even try different approaches to get you to open up (all within the bounds of the law). Silence is not an automatic shield that makes the police vanish. What it does is ensure that you are not helping them build a case against you out of your own mouth. There may be times when speaking can help – for instance, if you have a rock-solid alibi or crucial information that can clear up a misunderstanding. But those situations are delicate, and it’s wise to get legal counsel’s input before deciding to talk. You might choose to speak later, perhaps in court with all the safeguards that entails, instead of in a police interview room.
At the end of the day, the right to remain silent is about empowerment and choice. It levels the playing field by recognizing that the state, with all its power and resources, shouldn’t be able to simply compel you to self-incriminate. It puts the onus on the police and prosecutors to investigate and prove their case without shortcuts. For you, the citizen, it serves as a reminder that you have control over your own voice. You can choose to tell your side of the story – or choose to say nothing at all. Both choices are valid and protected. The key is that it isyour choice. And knowing how that right works means you can make that choice in an informed way.
In summary: The right to silence matters because it protects fairness and individual freedom in our justice system. It applies most sharply when you’re detained or under arrest – you don’t have to answer questions, and you have the right to a lawyer’s advice. You can refuse to talk; the police, for their part, can continue to request answers but cannot force or bully you into speaking. Misconceptions abound, but the truth is remaining silent cannot be held against you in court, and often it’s the wisest course. Using the right to silence is not about “getting off on a technicality” – it’s about protecting yourself from misunderstandings and upholding a fundamental principle that the burden of proof is on the state, not on you to condemn yourself. Silence, ultimately, is a powerful legal shield. It won’t physically stop the questions from coming, but it can stop you from handing over the answers on a silver platter. It’s a right – and it’s your choice whether to use it. Remember that if the moment ever comes: staying silent may feel unnatural, but it is both legally sound and often the smartest thing you can do to protect yourself. In the words of an old saying, “You won’t regret what you didn’t say.” In Canadian law, that wisdom has official backing – your silence is golden, and it’s protected. Just don’t expect the room to go quiet when you invoke it; the protection is there, but it’s up to you to use it. Silence, in the end, is a right – not a guarantee that questions will cease – but a guarantee that you cannot be forced to speak. And that can make all the difference.
The Law Office of Kalina & Tejpal can assist you when you are charged with any criminal offence. Exercise your right to speak to a lawyer by contacting us at (416) 900-6999 or 1 (844) 268-6477.
