R. v. Bond (F.F.), 2006 NSPC 17

• Judge: Tufts, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: June 15, 2005
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2006 NSPC 17;(2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 48 (PC)

R. v. Bond (F.F.) (2006), 244 N.S.R.(2d) 48 (PC);

    774 A.P.R. 48

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.020

Her Majesty the Queen v. Frederick Francis Bond

(1392918; 1392919; 2006 NSPC 17)

Indexed As: R. v. Bond (F.F.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Tufts, P.C.J.

March 20, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving, failing to comply with an approved screening device demand and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana).

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court convicted the accused of the possession charge and acquitted him of the other charges.

Editor's Note: for a related case see 234 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 745 A.P.R. 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The police stopped the accused - An officer made an approved screening device (ASD) demand at 2:09 a.m., believing that an ASD was in the trunk of the car - It was not - Another officer delivered an ASD to the scene - Testing began at 2:22 a.m. (i.e., 13 minutes after the demand) - The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device demand - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused, holding that the ASD demand was not made "forthwith" as required by s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code - The circumstances in this case did not justify the delay experienced - See paragraphs 24 to 34.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.4

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Evidence and proof - The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device demand - A police officer testified that she used an Alcotest® 7410 "Draeger" screening device - She also stated that it was an "approved screening device under the Criminal Code" - Another officer was present and was in a position to see the device and made a similar qualification - Neither officer was challenged on their description of the device as being an approved one - Two approved instruments under Regulations made pursuant to the Criminal Code were the Alcotest® 7410 PA3 and Alcotest® 7410 GLC - "Draeger" was a reference to the Canadian distributor of the device - The accused argued the officer's description was not sufficient proof that the device was an approved screening device - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court rejected the argument - An Alcotest® 7410 "approved" under the Criminal Code could only be the GLC or the PA3 model - See paragraphs 14 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Petrick (D.J.) (1996), 4 O.T.C. 146 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Dubois (G.) (2001), 190 N.S.R.(2d) 190; 594 A.P.R. 190 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Kosa, [1992] O.J. No. 2594 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Arsenault (D.J.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 766 A.P.R. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Low (S.C.) (2005), 266 Sask.R. 284 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Choudhry, [1997] O.J. No. 6278, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Woods (J.C.) (2005), 336 N.R. 1; 195 Man.R.(2d) 131; 351 W.A.C. 131; 2005 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Gray (P.H.) (2006), 242 N.S.R.(2d) 43; 770 A.P.R. 43; 2005 NSPC 67, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Snow (R.D.) (2004), 372 A.R. 297 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Dallago, [2001] O.J. No. 5683 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Nicolle, [2002] O.J. No. 3229, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. George (N.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Shirto, [2001] O.J. No. 3735, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Higgins (M.D.) (1994), 92 Man.R.(2d) 142; 61 W.A.C. 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Bohnstingl, [1992] O.J. No. 369 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 268, refd to. [para. 30].

Counsel:

Richard Hartlen, for the Crown;

Robert G. Cragg, for the defence.

This matter was heard at Windsor, Nova Scotia, on March 11, June 15, 2005 and January 27, 2006, before Tufts, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on March 20, 2006.