R. v. Crowdis (M.), (1990) 107 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (PC)

• Judge: Cain, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: June 23, 1990
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1990), 107 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (PC)

R. v. Crowdis (M.) (1990), 107 N.B.R.(2d) 271 (PC);

    107 R.N.-B.(2e) 271; 267 A.P.R. 271

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty The Queen v. Mark Crowdis

Indexed As: R. v. Crowdis (M.)

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Cain, P.C.J.

June 23, 1990.

Summary:

The accused motor vehicle owner was charged with driving to the left of a solid line contrary to s. 154(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The accused was charged as an owner pursuant to s. 270 of the Act. Section 270 provided that the owner was guilty of offences involving the use of his vehicle unless he established that, inter alia, the vehicle was operated by a person who had possession without his consent. The accused claimed s. 270 violated ss. 11(c) and (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that s. 270 violated ss. 11(c) and (d) and was not proved to be a reasonable limit prescribed by law under s. 1 of the Charter. The court likewise held that s. 362 of the Act violated ss. 11(c) and (d).

Civil Rights - Topic 4303

Protection against self-incrimination - Right to refuse to testify - Section 270 of the Motor Vehicle Act made an owner guilty of offences involving his vehicle unless "he established that" the vehicle was operated by someone without his consent - Section 362 made ownership prima facie evidence that the owner was driving - An innocent owner who could prove he was not the driver could still be convicted - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that ss. 270 and 362 violated the accused owner's right not to be compelled to be a witness against himself (Charter, s. 11(c)) and his right to be presumed innocent (s. 11(d)) - The court held that the Crown failed to prove the sections were reasonable limits prescribed by law under s. 1.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Reverse onus provisions - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4303].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4303].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 4124

Offences - Liability of owner - For offences of driver - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4303].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Burt (1987), 60 Sask.R. 100; 7 M.V.R.(2d) 146 (C.A.), agreed with [paras. 10, 11, 12, 30].

R. v. Gray (1989), 54 Man.R.(2d) 240; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 222 (C.A.), disagreed with [paras. 11, 12, 21, 30].

R. v. Pellerin (1989), 32 O.A.C. 146; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 35 (C.A.), agreed with [paras. 12, 30].

R. v. Ferlatte (1983), 49 N.B.R.(2d) 246; 129 A.P.R. 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 15, 20].

R. v. Holmes (1988), 85 N.R. 21; 27 O.A.C. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 16, 22, 23, 38].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 Q.A.C. 161; 39 C.C.C.(3d) 118, consd. [paras. 16, 24].

R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 13 C.R.R. 64; 18 C.C.C(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Bryant (1984), 6 O.A.C. 118; 42 C.R.(3d) 312 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [paras. 28, 30].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 48 C.R.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 34].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1, sect. 7, sect. 11(c), sect. 11(d) [Schedule A].

Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17, sect. 154(2) [para. 1]; sect. 270(1) [Schedule A]; sect. 347(2), sect. 347.1(5) [para. 14]; sect. 349(1) [para. 2]; sect. 361 [para. 35]; sect. 362 [para. 38].

Counsel:

[Not disclosed].

This case was heard before Cain, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 23, 1990.