R. v. Crook (P.), 2001 SKQB 367

• Judge: M-E. Wright, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2001 SKQB 367;(2001), 209 Sask.R. 154 (QB)

R. v. Crook (P.) (2001), 209 Sask.R. 154 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.002

Phillip Crook (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2000 Q.B.C.A. No. 102; 2001 SKQB 367)

Indexed As: R. v. Crook (P.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Humboldt

M-E. Wright, J.

July 23, 2001.

Summary:

Crook was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, contrary to ss. 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code. A one year driving prohibition and $700 fine was imposed. Crook appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in holding that he was not arbitrarily detained, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, and by admitting into evidence the certificate of analysis. Crook also appealed his sentence.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench stated that even though a detention may be arbitrary, if it was for a legitimate "articulable cause" or pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, it may be a justifiable infringement of individual rights - The court further noted that detention authorized by the Highway Traffic Act must be related to the operation of a vehicle or other road safety matter, while the officer is in the lawful execution of his or her duties and responsibilities, and when he can be readily identifiable as an officer - "In these circumstances, there is no need even for a suspicion of wrongdoing before an individual may be detained for the purpose of checking for his or her license, registration, sobriety or the mechanical fitness of the vehicle" - See paragraphs 9 to 11.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - A police officer observed Crook exiting the parking lot of a closed liquor store - The officer decided to check the vehicle, following it for two blocks until it parked in a residential driveway - No traffic violations were noted - When Crook exited the vehicle, the officer approached - Crook was asked to, and did, blow his breath at the officer's nose - Smelling alcohol, the officer administered an Alcotest - Crook failed - He was arrested - He was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, contrary to ss. 253(b) and 255(1) of the Criminal Code - Crook appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in holding that he was not arbitrarily detained, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Even if the detention was arbitrary, it was properly made under s. 40(8) of the Highway Traffic Act where the officer was checking for Crook's sobriety - Consequently, it was a reasonable limit prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - See paragraphs 1 to 15.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3105

Powers - Investigation - Impaired driving (incl. sobriety tests etc.) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3109

Powers - Investigation - Motor vehicles - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3208

Powers - Direction - Random or arbitrary stopping of persons - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Duncanson, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 836; 135 N.R. 117; 97 Sask.R. 96; 12 W.A.C. 96, affing. (1993), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193 (C.A.), appeal dismissed (1992), 135 N.R. 117; 12 C.R.(4th) 98 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Waskewitch (V.) (2001), 208 Sask.R. 71 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Rost (K.O.) (1999), 176 Sask.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Sundquist (M.R.) (1999), 182 Sask.R. 181; 216 W.A.C. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 8].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1)(c), sect. 258(1)(g) [para. 12].

Highway Traffic Act, S.S. 1986, c. H-3.1, sect. 40(8) [para. 8].

Counsel:

M.W. Henderson, for the appellant;

V.A. Adamko, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before M-E. Wright, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Humboldt, who delivered the following judgment on July 23, 2001.