R. v. Cardinal (S.R.), 2001 ABQB 872

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 15, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABQB 872;(2001), 301 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. Cardinal (S.R.) (2001), 301 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. OC.131

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Stanley Raymond Cardinal (appellant)

(0069-60454-S101001; 2001 ABQB 872)

Indexed As: R. v. Cardinal (S.R.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Fort McMurray

Watson, J.

October 15, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level (Criminal Code, s. 253(b)). The breathalyzer certificate indicated the times that the samples were taken as "1111 hours" and "1131 hours" on November 28, 2000. The trial judge held that this did not meet the requirements in s. 258(1)(g)(iii)(B) of the Code that the certificate show the "time when and place where each sample ... was taken" because there was no dot or colon inserted between the time of day recorded for each test (i.e., 11.11 and 11.31 or 11:11 and 11:31). He acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

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

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - A breathalyzer certificate indicated the times that the samples were taken as "1111 hours" and "1131 hours" on November 28, 2000 - A trial judge held that the certificate did not show the "time when and place where each sample ... was taken", as required by s. 258(1)(g)(iii)(B) of the Criminal Code, because there was no dot or colon inserted between the time of day recorded for each test (i.e., 11.11 and 11.31, or 11:11 and 11:31) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge erred in law in effectively finding that the time of the tests was not recorded intelligibly for the purposes of s. 258(1)(g)(iii)(B) and thereupon rejecting the certificate as valueless - See paragraphs 37 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - A trial judge held that a breathalyzer certificate did not show the "time when and place where each sample ... was taken", as required by s. 258(1)(g)(iii)(B) of the Criminal Code, because there was no dot or colon inserted between the time of day recorded for each test (i.e., 11.11 and 11.31, or 11:11 and 11:31) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that this finding was an error in law and that the trial judge also erred in law in determining the evidential value of the content of the certificate without reference to the surrounding evidence at trial - The investigating officer had testified as to the times read out to her by the qualified technician - This was not inadmissible hearsay - Moreover, hearsay was not anathema to breathalyzer/intoxilyzer investigations - See paragraphs 66 to 79.

Criminal Law - Topic 5201

Evidence and witnesses - General - Admissibility - Generally - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "The presumption of innocence permeates the legal process, and thus must affect how a Trial Judge might interpret evidence, but there is no rule of law that ambiguous evidence must necessarily be read in favour of an accused person. Evidence must be considered in its context. It is for the trier of fact to decide whether the options of interpretation of evidence are plausible or not. A rule of law does not descend upon the reasoning process from outside compelling exclusion of evidence due to its ambiguity. Weight of evidence is not, by itself, a compelling basis for exclusion ..." - See paragraph 56.

Evidence - Topic 6752

Parol evidence rule - Interpretation of a legal act - Evidence of surrounding circumstances - Where document ambiguous - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ferris (J.M.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 756; 174 N.R. 158; 162 A.R. 108; 83 W.A.C. 108; 34 C.R.(4th) 26, affing. (1994), 149 A.R. 1; 63 W.A.C. 1; 27 C.R.(4th) 141 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7, footnote 1].

R. v. Zwack (1979), 26 A.R. 399 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 2].

R. v. Schimpf (1980), 7 M.V.R. 161 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 3].

R. v. Perrier (1984), 5 O.A.C. 304; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 506 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 4].

R. v. Rourke (G.D.) (2001), 288 A.R. 150 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 5].

R. v. Kornak (1984), 51 A.R. 93; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 182; 30 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193; 27 M.V.R. 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8, footnote 6].

R. v. Noble, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 632; 17 N.R. 555; 19 N.B.R.(2d) 417; 30 A.P.R. 417; 40 C.R.N.S. 19; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 80 D.L.R.(3d) 69, affing. (1976), 15 N.B.R.(2d) 91; 18 A.P.R. 91; 32 C.C.C.(2d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 7].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 68 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 281; 209 A.P.R. 281; 60 C.R.(3d) 289; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118; 47 D.L.R.(4th) 399; 32 C.R.R. 18, reving. (1984), 31 C.C.C.(3d) 75 (Qué. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12, footnote 8].

R. v. Morin (J.) (2001), 286 A.R. 109; 253 W.A.C. 109 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (2001), 284 N.R. 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13, footnote 9].

R. v. Hordos, [1985] A.J. No. 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 10].

R. v. Desharnais (N.R.) (1998), 219 A.R. 379; 179 W.A.C. 379 (C.A.), reving. (1996), 185 A.R. 206 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16, footnote 11].

R. v. Bykowski (1980), 23 A.R. 426; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 398; 7 M.V.R. 282 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1980), 33 N.R. 584; 24 A.R. 360 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 12].

R. v. Reutov (P.) (2000), 269 A.R. 104; 4 M.V.R.(4th) 284 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 13].

R. v. Cabral (1983), 3 C.C.C.(3d) 287 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 14].

R. v. Jonasson (1990), 108 A.R. 270 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 15].

R. v. Shadoff (S.), [1993] O.J. No. 534 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 16].

R. v. Crandall (R.L.) (1998), 195 N.B.R.(2d) 210; 499 A.P.R. 210; 32 M.V.R.(3d) 156 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 17].

R. v. Ryden (M.J.) (1993), 145 A.R. 194; 55 W.A.C. 194; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 18].

R. v. Gosby (1974), 8 N.S.R.(2d) 183; 26 C.R.N.S. 161; 16 C.C.C.(2d) 228 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 19].

R. v. Jacobson (1974), 18 C.C.C.(2d) 446 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 20].

R. v. McLeod (1983), 43 A.R. 220 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 22].

R. v. Capowski (1982), 39 A.R. 494 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 23].

R. v. Strid (T.D.) (1993), 147 A.R. 176; 3 M.V.R.(3d) 164 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 24].

R. v. Mabee, [1972] 3 W.W.R. 633; 6 C.C.C.(2d) 467 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 25].

R. v. Player (1985), 33 M.V.R. 145 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 26].

R. v. Hache (1985), 63 N.B.R.(2d) 72; 164 A.P.R. 72; 36 M.V.R. 119 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 28].

R. v. McCullagh (1990), 38 O.A.C. 54; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 130 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 29].

R. v. Iwanyshyn (1976), 1 A.R. 446 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 30].

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; [1995] 3 W.W.R. 457; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 8 M.V.R.(3d) 75; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 132, reving. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 247; 47 W.A.C. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46, footnote 32].

R. v. Frederick (F.R.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. D39 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47, footnote 33].

R. v. Alexis (J.); R. v. Sloan (D.R.) (1999), 132 B.C.A.C. 270; 215 W.A.C. 270 (C.A.), folld. [para. 48, footnote 34].

R. v. Taylor (1983), 22 M.V.R. 295; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 293 (Ont. C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1983), 52 N.R. 236; 1 O.A.C. 160; 7 C.C.C.(3d) 293 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 35].

R. v. Perry, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1104; 33 N.R. 106; 51 C.C.C.(2d) 576; 21 B.C.L.R. 393; 7 M.V.R. 19, affing. (1978), 33 N.R. 108; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 182; 6 B.C.L.R. 209 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 36].

R. v. Marcellus (G.W.) (1999), 214 N.B.R.(2d) 72; 547 A.P.R. 72 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1999), 252 N.R. 195; 221 N.B.R.(2d) 200; 567 A.P.R. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 37].

R. v. Hussey (D.R.), [1990] O.J. No. 2699 (Prov. Div.), refd to. [para. 53, footnote 40].

R. v. North (D.B.), [1988] M.J. No. 521 (Prov. Ct.), not folld. [para. 54, footnote 41].

R. v. Aitkenhead (1980), 8 Man.R.(2d) 395 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 42].

R. v. Andrushko (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 273 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 43].

R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670; 85 N.R. 81; 64 C.R.(3d) 1; [1988] 4 W.W.R. 481; 28 B.C.L.R.(2d) 145; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 34 C.R.R. 54, affing. (1984), 17 C.C.C.(3d) 129 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 44].

R. v. Buric (G.J.) et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 535; 209 N.R. 241; 98 O.A.C. 398; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 95; 32 O.R.(3d) 320, affing. (1996), 90 O.A.C. 321; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 48 C.R.(4th) 149; 28 O.R.(3d) 737; 36 C.R.R.(2d) 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 45].

R. v. Hines (1979), 36 N.S.R.(2d) 524; 64 A.P.R. 524 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58, footnote 46].

R. v. Estabrooks (R.D.), [1997] N.B.R.(2d) Uned. 108 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 61, footnote 47].

R. v. Skalbania (N.M.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 995; 220 N.R. 349; 99 B.C.A.C. 81; 162 W.A.C. 81; 120 C.C.C.(3d) 217; 11 C.R.(5th) 292, affing. (1996), 80 B.C.A.C. 56; 130 W.A.C. 56; 109 C.C.C.(3d) 515 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 48].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193, affing. (1987), 21 O.A.C. 38; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 50 (C.A.), folld. [para. 66, footnote 49].

R. v. Moratto (A.), [2001] O.A.C. Uned. 57 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 66, footnote 50].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 133 D.L.R.(3d) 546, refd to. [para. 68, footnote 51].

R. v. Anderson, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 404; 7 A.R. 531 (C.A.), appeal adjourned sine die [1979] 1 S.C.R. 630, refd to. [para. 69, footnote 52].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1, reving. (1998), 123 Man.R.(2d) 292; 159 W.A.C. 292; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 53].

R. v. Van Der Veen (1988), 89 A.R. 4; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71, footnote 54].

R. v. Burke (1978), 32 N.S.R.(2d) 566; 54 A.P.R. 566 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 55].

R. v. Cassidy (1986), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 60; 186 A.P.R. 60 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74, footnote 56].

R. v. Ziemer (W.R.) (1994), 132 N.S.R.(2d) 147; 376 A.P.R. 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 75, footnote 57].

R. v. Babtiste (G.) (1980), 9 M.V.R. 216 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 77, footnote 58].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 32 C.R.(5th) 1, reving. (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 203; 170 W.A.C. 203; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 81, footnote 59].

Counsel:

James R. Jacques (Minister of Justice), for the respondent;

Arthur Tralenberg (Art Tralenberg Law Office), for the appellant.

This appeal was heard by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following decision on October 15, 2001.