R. v. Catling (L.E.), 2001 ABPC 98

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 04, 2001
• Citations: 2001 ABPC 98;(2001), 295 A.R. 93 (ProvCt)

R. v. Catling (L.E.) (2001), 295 A.R. 93 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] A.R. TBEd. JN.082

Her Majesty the Queen v. Lorne Edwin Catling

(05774534P10101-02; 2001 ABPC 98)

Indexed As: R. v. Catling (L.E.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

June 4, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level and impaired driving.

The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the accused of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level but convicted him of impaired driving.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement -Breath samples - Off-duty police officers arrested the accused for impaired driving but did not read the accused a demand for breath tests - When an on-duty officer (Ma) arrived 30 minutes after being dispatched, the off-duty officers relayed their observations of the accused to Ma who re-arrested the accused at 2:48 a.m. for impaired driving and advised him of his right to counsel and caution - Ma arrived at the police station at 3:10 a.m. and read the demand for a breath sample to the accused for the first time in the police station parking lot - The accused provided breath samples and was charged with driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - There was no evidence that the off-duty officers told Ma about the time of the accused's driving - The Alberta Provincial Court held that Ma did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the accused had committed an offence within the preceding three hours prior to the demand (Criminal Code, s. 254(3)(a)) - Secondly, the demand was not made "forthwith" or "as soon as practicable" as required by s. 254(3)(a) - Therefore, the subsequent seizure of the breath samples infringed the accused's s. 8 Charter rights - The court excluded the certificate of analysis under s. 24(2) as the breath samples were conscripted evidence -See paragraphs 8 to 60.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Demand - Reasonable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1373

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Belief by officer that offence was committed - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Words and Phrases

Forthwith - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the meaning of this word as used in s. 254(3)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 21 to 48.

Words and Phrases

As soon as practicable - The Alberta Provincial Court discussed the meaning of this phrase as used in s. 254(3)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 - See paragraphs 21 to 48.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacLeod (M.W.) (2001), 283 A.R. 218 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rilling, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183; 5 N.R. 327, refd to. [para. 9].

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; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Rowland (1990), 113 A.R. 238; 14 M.V.R.(2d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Findlay, [1971] 4 W.W.R. 576 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Strongquill (1978), 43 C.C.C.(2d) 232 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Oduneye (S.O.) (1995), 169 A.R. 353; 97 W.A.C. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para.

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Dereulle, [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, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sharpe (J.R.) (2001), 264 N.R. 201; 146 B.C.A.C. 161; 239 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Seo (1986), 13 O.A.C. 359; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411, refd to. [para. 31].

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. 33].

R. v. Pierman (M.B.) (1996), 73 O.A.C. 287; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Craig, [1992] A.J. No 1264 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Mudry (1979), 19 A.R. 379; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Van Der Veen (1988), 89 A.R. 4; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 38 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Clarke (1991), 27 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Rasmussen (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 304 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Middlebrook (M.J.), [1995] A.J. No. 975 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Collins (1987), 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.) (1997), 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C. (3d) 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Cobham (1994), 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 333 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 472 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. (1994), 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 254(3)(a) [para. 10].

Counsel:

J. Fraser, for the Crown;

P.B. Gunn, for the accused.

This action was heard by Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision at Edmonton, Alberta, on June 4, 2001.