Digest: R v Boyer-Lafond, 2018 SKQB 342

• Date: December 11, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 342

Docket Number: QB18329 , CRM 128/18 JCS

Court: Court of Queen's Bench

Date: 2018-12-11

Judges:

• Scherman

Subjects:

• Criminal Law � Appeal � Conviction
• Criminal Law � Defences � Charter of Rights, Section 10(b)
• Criminal Law � Impaired Driving � Blood Sample � As Soon as Practicable

Digest: The appellant appealed his impaired driving conviction. He argued that the trial judge erred in law by: 1) failing to find that there was a breach of the appellant�s s. 10(b) Charter rights when the police officer failed to reiterate for the appellant his rights to consult with counsel when a demand for a blood sample was made after he was unable to provide the breath samples previously demanded; and 2) dismissing the appellant�s argument that the blood sample was not taken as soon as practicable without providing reasons for so concluding. The appellant�s vehicle struck a police vehicle from behind at a red light in an intersection at approximately 2:49 am. The appellant failed an ASD at 3:11 and was arrested for impaired driving. He indicated that he understood his rights and wished to speak to a lawyer. At the detachment, the appellant consulted with Legal Aid counsel and then indicated that he was satisfied with the advice he received and was prepared to provide breath samples as demanded. After 18 attempts, the appellant was unsuccessful in providing a breath sample. The police officers believed that he was honestly attempting to provide a sample. A blood sample was demanded at 4:57 am. The blood samples were drawn between 7:00 and 7:05 am. The appellant�s Charter rights were not reiterated nor was he given another opportunity to consult with counsel after the police decided that they would make a demand for a blood test. The appellant argued that he should be given another opportunity to consult with counsel after the demand for a blood sample was made because: a) it was a new and non-routine procedure in the investigation; and b) the new demand and resulting procedure resulted in a change in jeopardy for the appellant. He also argued that the blood sample was not taken as soon as practicable.
HELD: The appellant�s grounds of appeal were dealt with as follows: 1) the authorities conflict with respect to whether rights to counsel had to be given again. The court concluded that, absent some intervening good reason requiring the police to give a second opportunity to contact counsel before the...