R. v. Brittain (Y.M.),

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Gerein, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 SKQB 242
• Citation: 2000 SKQB 242,(2000), 194 Sask.R. 26 (QB),2000 FCA 242,[2000] 10 WWR 663,[2000] SJ No 442 (QL),194 Sask R 26,[2000] S.J. No 442 (QL),194 SaskR 26,194 Sask.R. 26,(2000), 194 SaskR 26 (QB)
• Date: 26 May 2000
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)

R. v. Brittain (Y.M.) (2000), 194 Sask.R. 26 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.031

Yvonne May Brittain (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(1999 Q.B.C.A. NO. 41; 2000 SKQB 242)

Indexed As: R. v. Brittain (Y.M.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Gerein, J.

May 26, 2000.

Summary:

The appellant Brittain was convicted of operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level over the legal limit. She was stopped by officers for speeding and asked if she had been drinking. She denied it but later admitted drinking to the second officer. The second officer administered a roadside screen­ing test, which registered a fail. She then took a breathalyzer test which she also failed. Brittain appealed her convic­tion.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 1213

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - For reasonable and probable cause - Brittain was convicted of impaired driving - She was stopped by officers for speeding - The first officer asked if she had been drinking and she denied it - She then admitted to the second officer that she had - The second officer demanded a road­side screen­ing test while Brittain was in the police car - Brittain claimed that the officers had no grounds for the demand - She appealed the conviction - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The smell of alco­hol and her admission were grounds to demand the test - See para­graph 23.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention -What constitutes arbitrary detention - Brittain was convicted of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - She was stopped by officers for excess­ive speeding - The first officer asked if she had been drinking and she denied it - She then admitted to the second officer that she had - The second officer demanded a road­side screen­ing test while Brittain was in the police car - Brittain claimed that the officers had no grounds for detaining her in the police car - She appealed the con­vic­tion - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Brittain was driving excessively fast and erratically - Detaining her was reasonable in the circumstances - See para­graph 24.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving - Demand for breath or blood sample - Brittain was convicted of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - She was stopped by officers for excessive speeding - The first officer asked if she had been drinking and she denied it - She admitted to the second officer that she had - He demanded a road­side screen­ing test while Brittain was in the police car - Brittain claimed that she was denied her right to counsel before taking the test - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench held that the officer did not have to inform Brittain of her right to coun­sel before adminis­tering the road­side screen­ing test - However, in this case she was told and there was no viol­ation of s. 10(b) of the Charter - See paragraph 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 1367

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Mean­ing of "care and control" - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Road­side screening test - Demand - Reasonable grounds - Brittain was convicted of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - Officers stopped her for speed­ing exces­sively and demanded and administered a roadside screening test while Brittain was in the police car - Brittain claimed that the officers had no grounds for the demand - She further claimed that when the demand was made she was not operating or in care and con­trol of the vehicle as provided in the Code - She appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Brittain's extremely unusual driving made the demand reason­able - The pres­ent tense terms in the Code section impliedly included the past tense.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.2

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Road­side screening test - Time and place for - Brittain was con­victed of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - She was stopped by officers for speeding - They asked if she had been drinking and she denied it - The officers demanded and administered a roadside screening test while Brittain was in the police car - Brittain claimed that the officers had no grounds for the demand - She further claimed that when the demand was made she was not operating or in care and con­trol of the vehicle as provided in the Code - She appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Brittain's extremely unusual driv­ing made the demand reason­able - In the circum­stances the 12 minute delay was not long enough to render the demand unlaw­ful - See paragraph 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Letkeman (1983), 28 Sask.R. 307; 24 M.V.R. 273 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Johnson, [1987] 3 W.W.R. 765; 46 Man.R.(2d) 311; 46 M.V.R. 226 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Campbell (1989), 29 O.A.C. 317; 9 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 502 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Pierman (M.B.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 287; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dewald - see R. v. Pierman (M.B).

R. v. Orme (M.) (1998), 114 O.A.C. 321; 37 M.V.R.(3d) 179 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 24].

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. 24].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 26].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 254(2) [para. 7].

Counsel:

D.L. MacKinnon, for the appellant;

K.R. Humphries, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard before Gerein, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on May 26, 2000.