R. v. C.A.J.,

• Judge: Marceau, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 ABQB 838
• Citation: (2004), 370 A.R. 76 (QB),2004 ABQB 838,370 AR 76,44 Alta LR (4th) 188,[2004] CarswellAlta 1587,[2004] AJ No 1358 (QL),12 MVR (5th) 247,64 WCB (2d) 395,370 A.R. 76,(2004), 370 AR 76 (QB),[2004] A.J. No 1358 (QL)
• Date: 04 November 2004
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

R. v. C.A.J. (2004), 370 A.R. 76 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. DE.008

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. C.A.J. (appellant)

(030925226S1; 2004 ABQB 838)

Indexed As: R. v. C.A.J.

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Marceau, J.

November 25, 2004.

Summary:

The accused young person appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his blood-alcohol level exceeded .80 contrary to s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

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

Editor's note: certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The accused young person was stopped and was asked to submit to a roadside screening device - It registered a fail - He was taken to the police station - The accused provided the first breath sample at 10:31 p.m. and the second breath sample at 10:58 p.m. - He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood-alcohol level exceeded .80 - The accused argued that the 27 minute delay between the two breath samples was not "as soon as practicable" pursuant to s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code - The trial judge found the accused guilty - The accused appealed - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The trial judge did not err in determining that the 27 minute time interval between the samples which resulted in a 12 minute delay in excess of the statutorily mandated minimum of 15 minutes was not unreasonable - The delay did not raise a prima facie concern and the police were not required to account for every minute of an impaired driving investigation - See paragraphs 12 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Evidence - Topic 2247

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Particular matters - Public institutions - Facilities of - The accused young person was stopped and was asked to submit to a roadside screening device - It registered a fail - He was taken to the police station - The accused provided the first breath sample at 10:31 p.m. and the second breath sample at 10:58 p.m. - He was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his blood-alcohol level exceeded .80 - The accused argued that the 27 minute delay between the two breath samples was unreasonable - The trial judge found the accused guilty - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred by taking judicial notice that police stations were busy and that it explained the delay between the breath samples - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The court held that it could take judicial notice of the context of police stations, i.e., that they were busy in the sense that they dealt with more than just impaired drivers - It was open and notorious that police detachments could be busy and that other matters needed to be contended with at the detachment - See paragraphs 27 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Finlayson (1975), 21 C.C.C.(2d) 511, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Mudry (1979), 19 A.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Jonasson (H.M.), [1997] A.R. Uned. 161 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Lapointe (S.N.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 461; 2003 ABPC 109, consd. [para. 17].

R. v. Staiger (1977), 4 A.R. 494 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Cambrin (1983), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 59 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mide (E.B.) (1998), 233 A.R. 84; 1998 ABPC 126, consd. [para. 19].

R. v. R.D.S., [1997] 3 S.C.R. 484; 218 N.R. 1; 161 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 477 A.P.R. 241, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Find (K.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 863; 269 N.R. 149; 146 O.A.C. 236, refd to. [para. 30].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Michael B. Marcovitch, for the appellant;

Robert Fata, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on November 4, 2004, by Marceau, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on November 25, 2004.