R. v. Brezinski (C.C.), (2000) 268 A.R. 310 (QB)

• Judge: Lee, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 25, 2000
• Citations: (2000), 268 A.R. 310 (QB);2000 ABQB 373

R. v. Brezinski (C.C.) (2000), 268 A.R. 310 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. JN.068

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Calvin Curtis Brezinski (appellant)

(Action No. 9903-0235-S4; 2000 ABQB 373)

Indexed As: R. v. Brezinski (C.C.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Lee, J.

June 6, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breath demand. A conditional stay was entered on the refusal charge. The accused appealed the findings of guilt on both charges.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Excuse for refusal to provide - In considering the proposition that instrument malfunction could constitute a lawful basis for refusing to provide breath samples, the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "[t]here is likely no need that an accused be made aware of the instrument's failure in order for a defence based on instrument malfunc­tion to succeed. To so hold could lead to the result that the accused would only be acquitted if the police informed him that the Intoxilyzer instrument was inoperable, but convicted if that fact were concealed from him" - See paragraph 74.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Suffi­ciency of - The accused was found guilty of impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breath demand - A conditional stay was entered on the refusal charge - The accused appealed the findings of guilt on both charges - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge gave inadequate reasons for judgment where he did not specifically mention the accused's submissions that the investigating officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a demand for breath samples and that the demand was not for the provision of samples "as soon as practicable".

Criminal Law - Topic 7633

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - New trials - Grounds - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Richardson (1992), 57 O.A.C. 54; 74 C.C.C.(3d) 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Morrissey (1995), 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Deruelle, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 663; 139 N.R. 56; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 313 A.P.R. 1; 75 C.C.C.(3d) 118; 94 D.L.R.(4th) 638; 15 C.R.(4th) 215, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Drader (1978), 19 A.R. 451 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. McLelland (1995), 98 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Cooper, [1993] O.J. No. 501 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Khanataev, [1998] O.J. No. 2589 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Hopkie (D.M.) (1994), 126 Sask.R. 44 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. C.R.M. (1998), 165 Sask.R. 95 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Hendel, [1997] O.J. No. 2849 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Phinney (1979), 33 N.S.R.(2d) 266; 57 A.P.R. 266; 49 C.C.C.(2d) 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Campbell (1978), 9 A.R. 277; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Crocker (L.R.) (1997), 204 A.R. 296 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Kean, [1993] B.C.J. No. 1906 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 72].

R. v. Moser (1992), 53 O.A.C. 145; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 79].

Counsel:

R.S. Prithipaul (Gunn Prithipaul Nelson & Strong), for the appellant;

V. McCombe (General Prosecutions Branch), for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 25, 2000, before Lee, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmon­ton, who delivered the following judgment on June 6, 2000.