R. v. Cawley (W.C.), (2004) 279 N.B.R.(2d) 385 (TD)

• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Judge: Grant, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 NBQB 426
• Date: 05 May 2004
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick (Canada)

R. v. Cawley (W.C.) (2004), 279 N.B.R.(2d) 385 (TD);

    279 R.N.-B.(2e) 385; 732 A.P.R. 385

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[English language version only]

[Version en langue anglaise seulement]

Temp. Cite: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.014

Renvoi temp.: [2005] N.B.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.014

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Willard Christopher Cawley (respondent)

(S/A/7/03; 2004 NBQB 426; 2004 NBBR 426)

Indexed As: R. v. Cawley (W.C.)

Répertorié: R. v. Cawley (W.C.)

New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench

Trial Division

Judicial District of Saint John

Grant, J.

December 7, 2004.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was found not guilty of impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. The Crown appealed.

The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was charged with drinking and driving offences - The trial judge held that the arresting officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand, that breath samples were obtained from the accused in breach of his s. 8 Charter rights and that the breathalyzer results should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The accused was acquitted - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding that the breath samples constituted conscriptive evidence which automatically rendered the trial unfair and therefore had to be excluded - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, dismissed the appeal - Given the trial judge's finding that the evidence was conscriptive and his conclusion that it should be excluded under s. 24(2), the court inferred that the trial judge also concluded that the evidence would affect trial fairness and thereby bring the administration of justice into disrepute - At issue was not whether the trial judge adequately supported his conclusions, but whether they were supported by the record - The court conducted an analysis under s. 24(2) and upheld the decision to exclude the evidence - See paragraphs 35 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The Crown argued that the issue of whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand did not apply in this case because the accused acceded to the demand - In support of its submission, the Crown relied on R. v. Rilling (S.C.C.) and R. v. Bernshaw (S.C.C.) - The New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, rejected the argument - R. v. Bernshaw did not stand for the proposition that the issue of reasonable and probable grounds had no application where the accused took the test - Rather, it set out a procedure to be followed to deal with that issue under the Charter - See paragraphs 15 to 19.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Droits criminel - Cote 1372

Véhicules à moteur - Capacité de conduite - Affaiblie - Ethylomètre ou échantillon de sang - Ordre - Motifs raisonnables - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Droits criminel - Cote 1374

Véhicules à moteur - Capacité de conduite - Affaiblie - Ethylomètre - Preuve et certificat - Preuve des résultats d'analyse d'une solution éthylométrique - De l'haleine ou de toute autre substance du corps - [Voir Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Droits et libertés - Cote 8368

Charte canadienne des droits et libertés - Négation de droits - Remèdes - Exclusion de la preuve - [Voir Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rilling, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183; 5 N.R. 327; 24 C.C.C.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 16].

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, consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Gavin (D.J.) (1993), 118 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 84; 369 A.P.R. 84; 50 M.V.R.(2d) 302 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Babineau (1981), 37 N.B.R.(2d) 699; 97 A.P.R. 699; 11 M.V.R. 204 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. G.J.G. (2002), 254 N.B.R.(2d) 131; 664 A.P.R. 131 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Sall (1990), 81 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 10; 255 A.P.R. 10; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 48 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para.32].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 40].

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, refd to. [para. 42].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Salhany, Roger E., Canadian Criminal Procedure (5th Ed. 1989), p. 461 [para. 32].

Counsel:

William B. Richards, appearing on behalf of the appellant;

William H. Watts, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

This appeal was heard on May 5, 2004, before Grant, J., of the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench, Trial Division, Judicial District of Saint John. Grant, J., delivered the following decision on December 7, 2004.