R. v. Denny (L.J.), 2015 SKQB 36

Judge:Wilkinson, J.
Court:Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 05, 2015
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:2015 SKQB 36;(2015), 469 Sask.R. 276 (QB)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Denny (L.J.) (2015), 469 Sask.R. 276 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.014

Lorne Jay Denny (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2014 QBA No. 7; 2015 SKQB 36)

Indexed As: R. v. Denny (L.J.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Wilkinson, J.

February 5, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was arrested for impaired driving. He declined to contact counsel. On his release from the police detachment, he was told that he was also being charged with dangerous driving. At trial, the accused alleged breaches of his right to be informed of the reason for his arrest (Charter, s. 10(a)) and right to counsel (s. 10(b)). The trial judge found the accused not guilty of driving "over .08" and dangerous driving. The accused was convicted of impaired driving, based on the officer's observations of the accused's driving and the indicia of impairment. On appeal, the accused asserted that the trial judge had erred in failing to address his Charter arguments.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - The accused was arrested for impaired driving offences and dangerous driving - At trial, he alleged breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter - The trial judge found the accused not guilty of driving "over .08" and dangerous driving - The accused was convicted of impaired driving, based on the officer's observations of the accused's driving and the indicia of impairment - On appeal, the accused asserted that the trial judge had erred in failing to address his Charter arguments - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - While the trial judge had not ruled on the Charter issues, he had not failed to make necessary findings related to a main ground of defence - The evidence related to impaired driving was real evidence that was acquired by the officer prior to the accused's arrest and any alleged Charter infringement - In the absence of a "meaningful relationship between the infringement complained of and the evidence acquired", s. 24(2) did not apply - A remote or tenuous connection between the breach and the impugned evidence was insufficient - Further, the accused's application had specifically sought exclusion of evidence "from the point of breach" and had not identified the evidence he sought to exclude - The trial judge's approach was necessarily scrutinized from the perspective of the application before him - He deemed that dealing with the Charter application was unnecessary as it had no impact on his analysis of the impaired driving charge - The trial judge had not erred - His reasons were sufficient - See paragraphs 21 to 52.

Courts - Topic 584

Judges - Duties - To determine issues - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Durocher (E.), [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 152; 2008 SKQB 160, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Walker (B.G.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; 375 N.R. 228; 310 Sask.R. 305; 423 W.A.C. 305; 2008 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kratchmer (L.D.) (2012), 392 Sask.R. 262; 2012 SKQB 117, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Sinclair (T.T.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 310; 406 N.R. 1; 293 B.C.A.C. 36; 496 W.A.C. 36, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Ramage (R.) (2010), 265 O.A.C. 158; 257 C.C.C.(3d) 261; 2010 ONCA 488, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Galloway (R.) (2004), 249 Sask.R. 262; 325 W.A.C. 262; 2004 SKCA 106, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Kienapple, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729; 1 N.R. 322, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Haubrich, [1978] 5 W.W.R. 481 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Wildeman (1978), 42 C.C.C.(2d) 360 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Antoine (G.W.) (2003), 236 Sask.R. 225; 2003 SKPC 126, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Drabinasty (T.R.), [2012] Sask.R. Uned. 111; 2012 SKPC 139, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Lofstrom (J.E.) (2014), 444 Sask.R. 159; 2014 SKPC 91, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Taylor (L.) (2008), 339 Sask.R. 141; 2008 SKQB 436, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. McDougall (J.) (2013), 430 Sask.R. 173; 2013 SKQB 358, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Rowson (E.A.) (2014), 582 A.R. 244; 2014 ABQB 79, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. D.H.W., [2008] 2 S.C.R. 235; 375 N.R. 217; 255 B.C.A.C. 1; 430 W.A.C. 1; 2008 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 3; 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 36].

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, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Milne (R.S.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 348; 28 O.R.(3d) 577 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1996] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 207 N.R. 78; 97 O.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Brookwell (G.S.) (2008), 456 A.R. 343; 1 Alta. L.R.(5th) 345; 2008 ABQB 545, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Townsend (D.T.) (2008), 432 A.R. 183; 424 W.A.C. 183; 2008 ABCA 44, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Mack (D.R.) (2014), 462 N.R. 380; 580 A.R.41; 620 W.A.C. 41; 377 D.L.R.(4th) 412; 2014 SCC 58, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Manchulenko (M.) (2013), 310 O.A.C. 103; 301 C.C.C.(3d) 182; 2013 ONCA 543, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Poletz (R.B.) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 155; 602 W.A.C. 155; 2014 SKCA 16, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Henrikson (W.O.) (2005), 192 Man.R.(2d) 269; 340 W.A.C. 269; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 440; 2005 MBCA 49, refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Saulnier (N.) (2006), 296 N.B.R.(2d) 175; 769 A.P.R. 175; 205 C.C.C.(3d) 245 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Hamill (1984), 14 C.C.C.(3d) 338 (B.C.C.A.), affd. [1987] 1 S.C.R. 301; 75 N.R. 149, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 1; 546 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SKCA 30, dist. [para. 49].

R. v. Vuradin (F.), [2013] 2 S.C.R. 639; 446 N.R. 53; 553 A.R. 1; 583 W.A.C. 1; 2013 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 51].

Counsel:

Ronald P. Piche, for the appellant;

Scott A.H. Whitelaw, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Wilkinson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following judgment on February 5, 2015.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP