R. v. Deren (C.), 2013 SKPC 117

• Judge: Morgan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 29, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2013 SKPC 117;(2013), 426 Sask.R. 188 (PC)

R. v. Deren (C.) (2013), 426 Sask.R. 188 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.081

Her Majesty the Queen v. Christina Deren

(Information No. 24467870; 2013 SKPC 117)

Indexed As: R. v. Deren (C.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Morgan, P.C.J.

July 29, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood alcohol level that exceeded the legal limit.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of driving while having a blood alcohol level that exceeded the legal limit and not guilty of impaired driving.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - At 8:57 p.m., Constable Raymond was in his marked vehicle with the emergency lights on while he was assisting in an impaired driving investigation when the accused's vehicle went by at a high speed - He immediately pursued and stopped the accused's vehicle at 9:00 p.m. - An approved screening device test registered a "fail" at 9:11 p.m. - The officer made a breath sample demand at 9:18 p.m. - He called the accused's mother, at the accused's request, to see if the mother could come to the scene to take the accused's two children who were in the car with her - The officer also called for a tow truck - At 9:37 p.m., the tow truck arrived - At 10:12 p.m., the officer and the accused arrived at the detachment - After contacting counsel, the accused provided breath samples at 10:51 p.m. and 11:14 p.m. - At her trial on impaired driving charges, the accused asserted that the breath samples had not been taken "as soon as practicable" such that the Crown could not rely on the statutory presumption of identity - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument - The time period between the alleged offence (8:57 p.m.) and the first breath sample (10:51 p.m.) was 114 minutes - Given the circumstances facing the officer, he had taken all reasonable steps to obtain the breath samples "as soon as practicable" - Although the overall time frame was bumping up against the two hour limit for the presumption to apply, the limit was not exceeded and the time taken had been adequately explained - See paragraphs 23 to 55.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - Constable Raymond was in his marked vehicle with the emergency lights on while he was assisting in an impaired driving investigation when the accused's vehicle went by at a high speed - He immediately pursued and stopped the accused's vehicle - When he asked the accused if she had been drinking, the accused replied that she had consumed a glass of wine two hours previously - The officer made an approved screening device (ASD) demand, based on his opinion that the accused had alcohol in her body - The ASD test resulted in a "fail" - At her trial on impaired driving charges, the accused asserted that the officer had lacked reasonable grounds to suspect that she had alcohol in her body in order to justify the ASD demand, resulting in breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument - On the totality of the facts, the important one being the accused's admission regarding alcohol consumption, there were sufficient indicia to ground the officer's subjective belief that the accused had alcohol in her body - There was no need for the officer to believe that the accused's blood alcohol level exceeded the permitted amount - See paragraphs 13 to 22.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gunn (V.E.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 170; 552 W.A.C. 170; 2012 SKCA 80, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Zapski (G.R.) (2011), 369 Sask.R. 184; 2011 SKQB 67, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Meyer (C.D.) (2007), 315 Sask.R. 145; 2007 SKQB 428, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Duchek (J.C.) (2012), 390 Sask.R. 170; 2012 SKPC 7, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Vanderbruggen (M.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 379; 2006 CanLII 9039 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Berrecloth (C.), [2012] Sask.R. Uned. 68; 2012 SKQB 175, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Reid (T.) (2013), 419 Sask.R. 164; 2013 SKPC 62, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Fyfe (B.) (2007), 297 Sask.R. 258; 2007 SKPC 56, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Allin (B.D.L.) (2003), 233 Sask.R. 73; 2003 SKPC 58, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. McAllister (D.J.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 722; 2009 ABPC 320, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Burwell (J.) (2013), 412 Sask.R. 94; 2013 SKQB 20, refd to. [para. 51].

Counsel:

William Collins, for the Crown;

Brian Pfefferle, for the defendant.

This case was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Morgan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 29, 2013.