R. v. Adams, (1986) 51 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

• Judge: Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: October 06, 1986
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (1986), 51 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

R. v. Adams (1986), 51 Sask.R. 161 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Adams

(No. 2295)

Indexed As: R. v. Adams

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A.

October 6, 1986.

Summary:

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level contrary to s. 236(1) of the Criminal Code. The breathalyzer technician testified at trial on the breath analysis. The accused challenged the appointment of the technician pursuant to s. 237(6) of the Criminal Code. The trial judge held that the technician was a "qualified technician" designated by the Attorney General and convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court in a decision unreported in this series of reports, allowed the appeal and held that the Crown failed to prove that the technician was properly designated. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence - Certificate evidence - Designation of qualified technician - Proof of designation - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal discussed the means of proving the designation of a peace officer as a qualified technician pursuant to s. 237(6) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 1 to 9 and 11 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence - Certificate evidence - Designation of qualified technician - Proof of designation - The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level contrary to s. 236(1) of the Criminal Code - The accused alleged that the Crown failed to prove that the peace officer was properly designated as a qualified technician - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the Crown does not have to prove that the technician's designation was signed by the Attorney General or his designate - The court stated that in the absence of evidence to the contrary the Crown does not have to prove who signed the technician's designation as a qualified technician - See paragraphs 11 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 7464

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - General - Powers on appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal stated that an "appeal court may on the hearing of an appeal allow the appeal where the verdict should be set aside because it is unreasonable or cannot be supported by the evidence pursuant to s. 613(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code" - See paragraphs 18 and 19.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Baskier (1971), 4 C.C.C.(2d) 552 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Leblanc (1972), 4 N.S.R.(2d) 29; 7 C.C.C.(2d) 525 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 199; [1978] 6 W.W.R. 357; 43 C.C.C.(2d) 321; 5 C.R.(3d) 21; 91 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Crosthwait, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1089; 31 N.R. 603; 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 509; 68 A.P.R. 509; 111 D.L.R.(3d) 431; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Andres, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 249; 1 Sask.R. 96, consd. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234 [paras. 1, 2]; sect. 236(1) [paras. 1, 2, 11, 14, 19]; sect. 237(1)(c) [paras. 2, 11, 14]; sect. 237(1)(f) [paras. 2, 14]; sect. 237(6) [paras. 3, 14].

Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. E-10, sect. 22(1) [paras. 3, 7].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (4th Ed. 1974), p. 112 [para. 3].

Counsel:

D.M. Brown, for the Attorney General for Saskatchewan;

Mark Brayford, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Bayda, C.J.S., Vancise and Wakeling, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. On October 6, 1986, the decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered when the following judgments were filed:

Bayda, C.J.S. - See paragraphs 1 to 9;

Vancise, J.A. - See paragraphs 10 to 20;

Wakeling, J.A., agreed with both judgments.