R. v. Adams (A.R.), 2015 SKQB 78

• Judge: Scherman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 16, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKQB 78;(2015), 470 Sask.R. 260 (QB)

R. v. Adams (A.R.) (2015), 470 Sask.R. 260 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.014

Aimee Rayel Adams (formerly Ewing)

(appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2014 QBCA No. 31; 2015 SKQB 78)

Indexed As: R. v. Adams (A.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Scherman, J.

March 16, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of failing or refusing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made under s. 254 of the Criminal Code that she provide a sample of breath for analysis by an approved screening device. She appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See second and third Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The appellant argued that R. v. Wilson (2013 Sask. C.A.) was authority for the proposition that once a person had been arrested and charged with impaired care and control there was no legally valid reason for the police to require that person to provide an ASD sample - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[a]t its highest and best, the Court of Appeal has only in obiter adopted or accepted the Provincial Court statement that once charged with impaired driving the state has no powers to compel the individual to give an ASD sample." - The court held that it did not need to decide the legal issue on the facts of this case - See paragraphs 7 and 21 to 24.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The accused was convicted of failing or refusing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made under s. 254 of the Criminal Code that she provide a sample of breath for analysis by an approved screening device (ASD demand) - She had been stopped initially by two university security officers (Constables Chapple and Nixey) and charged with obstruction and refusal to provide an ASD sample - The security officers had called in the Saskatoon Police Service (SPS) for assistance because of a "disturbance" involving the accused's passenger - At some point after her arrival, Constable Mireau of the SPS advised the accused that she was under arrest for impaired driving and tried to get the accused to accompany her to the SPS vehicle, wanting her to participate in an alcohol screening test - The accused alleged that the subsequent arrest for impaired driving by Mireau was arbitrary - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The trial judge did find that on her arrival, and based upon information provided by Chapple, Mireau had arrested the accused for impaired driving - However, the trial judge concluded that while her terminology was unfortunate, Mireau had in fact detained the accused for a continuation of the impaired investigation that was the initial reason for the traffic stop, at a time when she was already lawfully arrested for obstruction and refusal of an ASD demand (i.e., the trial judge found as a fact that the accused had not been arrested or charged with impaired driving) - The short-term detention for this purpose was not arbitrary, but justified - Shortly thereafter, the investigative detention ended because the accused refused the breath demand, whereupon she was again properly arrested for refusal - See paragraphs 18 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The accused was convicted of failing or refusing, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a demand made under s. 254 of the Criminal Code that she provide a sample of breath for analysis by an approved screening device (ASD demand) - On appeal, she argued that from the outset she was under de facto arrest for impaired driving and that as a result her Charter rights were breached by failures to inform her of the reason for her arrest and to provide associated advice regarding Charter rights - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - While the trial judge did not label what initially occurred as a detention, it was abundantly clear from what occurred that the accused was initially and lawfully detained to investigate her driver's licence, registration and sobriety - The fact that this was the purpose of the detention was clear from Constable Chapple's request and ASD demand - Thus, the detention to that stage was in no sense arbitrary - This investigative detention quickly progressed into arrests for both obstruction and refusal to provide a sample in response to the ASD demand - The fact that Chapple might not have had a clear understanding of the distinction between reasonable grounds to believe a driver in care and control of a vehicle was impaired and reasonable grounds to suspect a person had alcohol in his or her body did not change the facts of what occurred - What occurred was an initial proper detention, which was not arbitrary, which very quickly progressed into lawful arrests - See paragraphs 14 to 17.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Wilton (G.D.) (2007), 306 Sask.R. 117; 2007 SKPC 141, affd. (2009), 345 Sask.R. 81; 2009 SKQB 405, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Latimer (R.W.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 217; 207 N.R. 215; 152 Sask.R. 1; 140 W.A.C. 1; 112 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Strilec (J.J.) (2010), 286 B.C.A.C. 171; 484 W.A.C. 171; 256 C.C.C.(3d) 403; 2010 BCCA 198, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Tsang, 2014 BCPC 80, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Budden (L.M.) (2005), 387 A.R. 317; 51 Alta. L.R.(4th) 68; 2005 ABQB 314, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Madore (R.K.) (2012), 320 B.C.A.C. 65; 543 W.A.C. 65; 2012 BCCA 160, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Orr (K.Y.S.) (2010), 297 B.C.A.C. 54; 504 W.A.C. 54; 2010 BCCA 513, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Wilson (S.R.G.) (2013), 427 Sask.R. 63; 591 W.A.C. 63; 2013 SKCA 128, affing. (2011), 382 Sask.R. 37; 2011 SKPC 133, consd. [paras. 7, 22].

Counsel:

Ammy S. Murray, for the appellant;

Rochelle C. Wempe, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by Scherman, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following decision on March 16, 2015.