R. v. Cope (E.A.), (2016) 370 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (SC)

• Judge: Chipman, J.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 22, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2016), 370 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (SC);2016 NSSC 41

R. v. Cope (E.A.) (2016), 370 N.S.R.(2d) 59 (SC);

    1165 A.P.R. 59

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. FE.007

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Emily Ann Cope (respondent)

(Tru. No. 435681; 2016 NSSC 41)

Indexed As: R. v. Cope (E.A.)

Nova Scotia Supreme Court

Chipman, J.

February 3, 2016.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while her blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit. The trial judge found that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated and acquitted the accused of both charges. The Crown appealed.

The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Provincial Court for a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1

Right to counsel - General - Advice re - Understanding of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - General - Duty to notify accused of or explain right to counsel - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators (incl. undercover officers) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7659 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 7659 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7659

Summary conviction proceedings - Appeals - Grounds - Verdict unreasonable or unsupported by evidence - Following a single vehicle accident, Cope was charged with impaired driving (count 1) and driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit (count 2) - In December 2014, the trial judge found that Cope had not been confused and had understood her conversation with the police officer following the accident - The trial judge relied on that lack of confusion to acquit Cope of count 1 - In April 2015, the trial judge found that Cope's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated because the police officer was either negligent or wilfully blind to Cope's indicia of confusion and thus did not act in good faith when he provided her with the s. 10(b) caution - Cope was thus acquitted of count 2 as well - The Nova Scotia Supreme Court allowed the Crown's appeal - The trial judge's findings were impossible to reconcile and therefore unreasonable - Either Cope demonstrated a lack of understanding or she did not - The trial judge's inconsistent findings called into question his analysis regarding both counts - Cope's responses to the officer's questions did not suggest a lack of understanding - The officer acted in good faith and provided a proper s. 10(b) caution.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Taylor (J.K.) (2014), 460 N.R. 101; 572 A.R. 81; 609 W.A.C. 81; 2014 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. MacGregor (R.O.) (2012), 313 N.S.R.(2d) 281; 990 A.P.R. 281; 2012 NSCA 18, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Gillespie (J.A.) (2013), 331 N.S.R.(2d) 15; 1051 A.P.R. 15; 2013 NSSC 185, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Schofield (A.T.) (2015), 354 N.S.R.(2d) 187; 1120 A.P.R. 187; 2015 NSCA 5, appld. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Laura Barrett, for the appellant;

Michael P. Scott, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Truro, N.S., on January 22, 2016, before Chipman, J., of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 3, 2016.