R. v. Angus (G.A.), (2013) 564 A.R. 252 (QB)

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 07, 2013
• Citations: (2013), 564 A.R. 252 (QB);2013 ABQB 195

R. v. Angus (G.A.) (2013), 564 A.R. 252 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JN.111

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Glendon Allan Angus (appellant)

(110719879S1; 2013 ABQB 195)

Indexed As: R. v. Angus (G.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

June 20, 2013.

Summary:

Angus was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding .08 and for breaching an undertaking requiring him to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. He appealed the conviction for driving with a proscribed blood-alcohol content, on the basis that the trial judge erred in holding that the standard for proof of service of a Certificate of Analyses was the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The trial judge's decision was correct and consistent with the 1993 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Egger (J.H.).

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - Notice of intention to produce - The accused appealed the conviction for driving with a proscribed blood-alcohol content, on the basis that the trial judge erred in holding that the standard for proof of service of a Certificate of Analyses was the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge's decision was correct and consistent with the 1993 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Egger (J.H.) - See paragraphs 20 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - Notice of intention to produce - The accused appealed the conviction for driving with a proscribed blood-alcohol content - He had been provided with verbal notice as well as written notice detailing the Crown's intention to produce the Certificate of Analyses at trial - Cst. Barnes explained the Certificate to the accused and then served the document upon him - The Certificate was stored with his other belongings in safekeeping while the accused was lodged in cells - Service of the document was proven through viva voce testimony of Cst. Barnes and the sworn Affidavit of Service on the back of the Certificate - There was no evidence to suggest that the accused failed to understand the verbal notice he was given, nor that he failed to receive the physical Certificate upon his release from custody - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, based on the foregoing evidence, held that the sworn affidavit of service on its own constituted reasonable notice and proof of service of the Certificate of Analyses - See paragraphs 27 and 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 1382.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Service of certificate and copy (incl. computer generated copy) - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5375

Evidence and witnesses - Documents and reports - Notice - Service - General (incl. proof of) - [See both Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Redford (B.S.) (2012), 527 A.R. 389; 2012 ABPC 19, refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 7].

Valgardson v. Valgardson (2012), 522 A.R. 244; 544 W.A.C. 244; 2012 ABCA 124, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 103 D.L.R.(4th) 678, appld. [para. 9].

R. v. Nicholson (1984), 52 A.R. 132; 31 Alta. L.R.(2d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Cunningham (D.J.) (2006), 401 A.R. 35; 391 W.A.C. 35; 2006 ABCA 345, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Hey (W.T.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 65; 81 M.V.R.(5th) 130; 2009 ABCA 204, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Northcott (J.E.) (1995), 177 A.R. 94 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Barratt (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 174 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Duplessis (2006), 49 M.V.R.(5th) 252 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Nelson (D.B.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 162; 69 W.C.B.(2d) 163; 2006 ABQB 297, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Nitschke, 2007 CarswellAlta 1874 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Buffalo (M.D.) (2010), 480 A.R. 284; 2010 ABQB 325, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Redford (B.S.) (2012), 549 A.R. 183; 41 M.V.R.(6th) 251; 2012 ABQB 768, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.) (2012), 436 N.R. 199; 2012 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dineley (S.) (2012), 436 N.R. 59; 297 O.A.C. 50; 2012 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230; 1980 ABCA 20, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Good et al. (1983), 44 A.R. 393; 6 C.C.C.(3d) 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. MacKinnon (R.) (2003), 177 O.A.C. 188; 42 M.V.R.(4th) 205; 2003 CarswellOnt 3827 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Spreen (1987), 82 A.R. 318; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Harris (1983), 45 A.R. 357 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(7) [para. 8].

Counsel:

Megan Rosborough (Crown Prosecutor's Office), for the Crown;

Steve Smith (Gunn Law Group), for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on March 7, 2013, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment, dated June 20, 2013.