R. v. Duff (R.A.), 2010 ABPC 319

JudgeRosborough, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateSeptember 29, 2010
Citations2010 ABPC 319;(2010), 501 A.R. 122 (PC)

R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. OC.038

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Richard Albert Duff (No. 2)

(accused/applicant)

(081458952p1; 2010 ABPC 319)

Indexed As: R. v. Duff (R.A.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

September 29, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while having a blood-alcohol level in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving. Anticipating that the prosecution would seek to rely upon a statutory presumption in order to prove that he was driving his motor vehicle with a proscribed blood-alcohol content and whilst his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, the accused challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 258(1)(c) and 258(1)(d.01) of the Criminal Code. He submitted that those recently amended or enacted statutory provisions violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application for a declaration of constitutional invalidity. The court found the accused guilty of both counts.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4951 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4951

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Statutory presumptions - The accused was charged with driving while having a blood-alcohol level in excess of the legal limit and impaired driving - Anticipating that the prosecution would seek to rely upon a statutory presumption in order to prove that he was driving his motor vehicle with a proscribed blood-alcohol content and whilst his ability to do so was impaired by alcohol, the accused challenged the constitutional validity of ss. 258(1)(c) and 258(1)(d.01) of the Criminal Code - He submitted that those recently amended or enacted statutory provisions violated ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter - The grounds on which the provisions were challenged were that (i) a prohibition on evidence of alcohol consumption as sufficient "evidence to the contrary" violated ss. 7 and 11(d) by eliminating the possibility of acquittal even if the accused's evidence as to drinking pattern was accepted as true by the trial judge; (ii) it would be so difficult for the defence to prove error in the approved instrument or its operation, that the new legislation effectively created a "strict liability" criminal offence; (iii) the legislation deprived an accused of making full answer and defence - The accused submitted that the presumption of innocence protected by s. 11(d) of the Charter and the principles of fundamental justice protected by s. 7, were violated by creation of a presumption ("conclusive proof") that operated notwithstanding the existence of a reasonable doubt - The Alberta Provincial Court found that the impugned provisions did not violate s. 7 or s. 11(d) of the Charter - The presumptions created by s. 258(1)(c) of the Code were not irrebuttable - The court was not satisfied that the defence could not adduce evidence of instrument malfunction or operator error - Either or both could be demonstrated by reference to disclosure materials or by cross-examination of the qualified technician - The fact that there might be a limited number of cases where malfunction or error could be demonstrated spoke more to the efficacy of the breath/alcohol testing protocol than it did to an unacceptable limitation on the accused's ability to make full answer and defence - In the event that it was in error in its determination that the impugned statutory provisions did not violate ss. 7 or 11(d) of the Charter, the court held that they were reasonable limits on those rights pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 144 to 185.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4951 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol at the time of his driving and it found him guilty of that offence - The accused's driving behaviour was erratic - His vehicle repeatedly wandered between the lines on the roadway, to the point of crossing them, before "jerking" back towards the centre of the lane in which he was travelling - He was slow or "stumbly" in producing the required documentation and spoke with a pronounced slur - When returning to the police cruiser, he stumbled to the left and had to be redirected back to the proper side of the police vehicle - His eyes were red, bloodshot and glassy - He admitted to consuming alcohol - He exhibited marked mood swings - His blood-alcohol level at the time of driving was, presumptively, 190 mg.% - That reading could corroborate Cst. Zaplachinski's observations of impaired operating ability - Cst. Zaplachinski had had prior dealings with the accused when he was sober - The accused's appearance, coordination skills, behaviour and demeanor were markedly different on those occasions - See paragraphs 187 to 200.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4951 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The Alberta Provincial Court held that a reasonable doubt about the presumption created by s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code could only arise where there was evidence tending to show all three of the things in s. 258(1)(c) - See paragraph 142.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Ryckman, [1975] A.J. No. 439 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Gibson (R.A.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 397; 373 N.R. 1; 429 A.R. 327; 421 W.A.C. 327; 264 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 847 A.P.R. 331, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Powichrowski, 2009 ONCJ 490, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Muzuva, [2010] O.J. No. 410 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Tidlund (R.J.) (2010), 486 A.R. 370 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 46].

Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. et al. v. Canada et al. (2010), 402 N.R. 206; 482 A.R. 66; 490 W.A.C. 66; 263 O.A.C. 4; 2010 SCC 21, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Hanson (1989), 39 O.A.C. 97; 18 M.V.R.(2d) 172 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Moreau, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 261; 23 N.R. 541, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Weir (1983), 56 A.R. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 108].

R. v. Kruchten, [1971] A.J. No. 35 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Gaetz, [1972] A.J. No. 28 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Dygdala (1976), 1 A.R. 359 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Reeves (1978), 9 A.R. 149 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Taylor (1978), 12 A.R. 435 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Norman (1978), 9 A.R. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Kucher (1979), 16 A.R. 494 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Seniuk (1980), 23 A.R. 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Mathews, [1980] A.J. No. 231 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Hughes (1982), 38 A.R. 276 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Drever (1982), 39 A.R. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. English, [1982] A.J. No. 241 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. St. Pierre (1982), 39 A.R. 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Sambrooke, [1982] A.J. No. 426 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. B.W.D., [1983] A.J. No. 401 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Davis (1983), 42 A.R. 185 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Roach (1985), 66 A.R. 73 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Payne (1986), 72 A.R. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Wilkinson (1991), 120 A.R. 3; 8 W.A.C. 3 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Tallon (J.E.) (1992), 135 A.R. 146; 33 W.A.C. 146 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Taylor, [1993] A.J. No. 492 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Heisler (W.) et al. (1994), 157 A.R. 178; 77 W.A.C. 178 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Pryor (T.) - see R. v. Heisler (W.) et al.

R. v. Manegre (D.M.) (1994), 157 A.R. 396; 77 W.A.C. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Gilbert, [1995] A.J. No. 1110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Ohlhauser (K.T.) (1998), 228 A.R. 105; 188 W.A.C. 105 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Ellerman (B.H.) (2000), 255 A.R. 149; 220 W.A.C. 149; 2000 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Kostash (D.W.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 6 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. MacDonald (M.F.) (2006), 391 A.R. 140; 377 W.A.C. 140; 2006 ABCA 177, refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Boucher (E.) (2005), 342 N.R. 42 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Snider (2006), 31 M.V.R.(5th) 296 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Chow (K.-T.) (2010), 267 O.A.C. 108; 2010 ONCA 442, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Kernighan (L.R.) (2010), 275 O.A.C. 135; 2010 ONCA 465, refd to. [para. 125].

R. v. Onyszkanycz (B.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. O97 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 134].

R. v. Dineley (S.) (2009), 256 O.A.C. 235; 2009 ONCA 814, refd to. [para. 136].

R. v. Truong (C.), [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 22; 2009 BCSC 22, refd to. [para. 137].

R. v. Kasim, [2010] A.J. No. 969 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 138].

R. v. Vardy, 2010 ONCJ 255, refd to. [para. 142].

R. v. Downey and Reynolds, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 10; 136 N.R. 266; 125 A.R. 342; 14 W.A.C. 342, refd to. [para. 144].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Kowlyk, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 59; 86 N.R. 195; 55 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697; 117 N.R. 1; 114 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 146].

R. v. Gillespie, 2010 BCPC 207, refd to. [para. 147].

R. v. D.B. (2008), 374 N.R. 221; 237 O.A.C. 110; 2008 SCC 25, refd to. [para. 152].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 156].

R. v. Cinous (J.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 3; 285 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Vandenelsen (C.A.) (2003), 175 O.A.C. 71; 177 C.C.C.(3d) 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 159].

R. v. Jacobs (1982), 39 A.R. 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 164].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 3; 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 165].

R. v. Hamilton, [1984] A.J. No. 670 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Phillips (1988), 27 O.A.C. 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

R. v. Ballem (A.K.) (1990), 84 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 125; 262 A.P.R. 125; 22 M.V.R.(2d) 14 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 169].

JTI-Macdonald Corp. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610; 364 N.R. 89; 2007 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Chaulk and Morrissette, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; 119 N.R. 161; 69 Man.R.(2d) 161, refd to. [para. 170].

R. v. Heywood (R.L.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 761; 174 N.R. 81; 50 B.C.A.C. 161; 82 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 174].

New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [para. 176].

R. v. Ruzic (M.), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687; 268 N.R. 1; 145 O.A.C. 235, refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Demers (R.), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 489; 323 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 177].

R. v. Thompson (N.) (2001), 141 O.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

R. v. Kumar (R.) (1993), 36 B.C.A.C. 81; 58 W.A.C. 81; 49 M.V.R.(2d) 20 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.) (1985), 63 N.R. 266 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 183].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 188].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 189].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 190].

R. v. Rogers (1976), 55 C.C.C.(2d) 182 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 196].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 162]; sect. 7 [para. 151]; sect. 11(d) [para. 144].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1)(c), sect. 258(1)(d.01), sect. 258(1)(d.1) [para. 6].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Australian Institute of Criminology Research and Public Policy Series, The Promise of Crime Prevention (1996), generally [para. 163].

Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates, vol. 141, No. 99, 1st Sess., 39th Parliament (January 30, 2007), pp. 6185 [para. 61]; 6186 [para. 72]; 6187 [paras. 61, 76].

Canada, Hansard, Senate Debates, vol. 144, 2nd Sess., 39th Parliament (December 4, 2007), p. 382 [para. 61].

Canada, Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Ending Alcohol-Impaired Driving: A Common Approach (2009), generally [para. 163].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings, Issue No. 8, 2nd Sess., 39th Parliament (February 20, 2008), pp. 8 to 78 [para. 105].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings, Issue No. 9, 2nd Sess., 39th Parliament (February 21, 2008), p. 9:37 [para. 126].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings, Issue No. 72, 1st Sess., 39th Parliament (May 30, 2007), p. 2 [para. 132].

Canada, Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Proceedings, Issue No. 79, 1st Sess., 39th Parliament (June 19, 2007), p. 2 [para. 132].

Canada, Statistics Canada Juristat, Police Reported Crime Statistics in Canada, 2009 (2010), generally [paras. 163, 167].

Canada, Transport Canada, Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Collision Statistics (2007), generally [para. 163].

Canada, Transport Canada, Impaired Driving Survey for Transport Canada/MADD Canada - Final Report (2007), generally [para. 163].

Cooper, Stephen, Infrared Breath Alcohol Analysis Following Inhalation of Gasoline Fumes (1981), 5 J. Analytical Toxicology 1, pp. 198, 199 [para. 85].

Denney, R.C., Solvent Inhalation and Apparent Alcohol Studies on the Lion Intoximeter 3000 (1990), 30 J. Forensic Sci. Soc. 357, pp. 357 to 361 [para. 85].

Dubowski, K.M., Some Major Developments Related to Chemical Tests for Intoxication (1957), Police, pp. 54 to 56 [para. 68].

European Transport Safety Council, Traffic Law Enforcement Across the EU (2006), generally [para. 163].

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, House of Commons Debates.

Hansard - see Canada, Hansard, Senate Debates.

Harding, P.M., Laessig, R.H., and Field, P.H., Field Performance of the Intoxilyzer 5000: A Comparison of Blood and Breath Alcohol Results in Wisconsin Drivers (1990), 35 J. Forensic Sci. 102, pp. 102 to 108 [para. 75].

Jalazo, J., Steer, R.A., and Fine, E.W., Use of Breathalyzer Scores in Evaluation of Persons Arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (1978), 39 J. Studies on Alcohol 1304, p. 1306 [para. 113].

Jones, A.W., Measuring Alcohol in Blood and Breath for Forensic Purposes - A Historical Review (1996), 8 Forensic Sci. Rev. 13, pp. 13 to 44 [para. 68].

Kechagias, S., Jonsson, K.-A., Franzien, T., Andersson, L., and Jones, A.W., Reliability of Breath Alcohol Analysis in Individuals With Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (1999), 44 J. Forensic Sci. 814, pp. 814 to 818 [para. 85].

Langille, R.M., and Wigmore, J.G., The Mouth Alcohol Effect After a Mouthful of Beer Under Social Conditions (2000), 33 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 193, pp. 193 to 198 [para. 85].

Martin, T.L., Wigmore, J.G., and Woodall, K.L., A Comparison of Blood Alcohol Concentrations Estimated From Drinking Histories of Drivers Charged with Over 80 and Their Intoxilyzer 5000C Results (2004), 37 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 187, generally [paras. 112, 116].

Mayhew, D., Brown, S., and Simpson, H., Alcohol-Crash Problem in Canada, 2007 (2010), generally [para. 163].

Mercer, William, Estimating the Presence of Alcohol and Drug Impairment in Traffic Crashes and their Costs to Canadians: 1999-2006 (2009), generally [para. 163].

Pain, Stephanie, Catch 'Em on the Rye (1978), 11 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 75, pp. 75 to 82 [para. 70].

Pain, Stephanie, Catch 'Em on the Rye (2004), New Scientist, pp. 46, 47 [para. 70].

Perrine, M.W. Bud, Mundt, J.C., Searles J.S., and Walter, D., I Only Had a Couple of Beers: Validation of Drivers' Self-reported Drinking in Bars (1997), 2 Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety-T'97 769, p. 774 [para. 114].

Pon, R.A., The Role of the Alcohol Test Committee in Evaluating Evidentiary Breath Test Instruments and Monitoring Equipment Modifications (2009), 21 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 63, pp. 63 to 67 [para. 79].

Robertson, R., Vanlaar W., and Simpson, H., National Survey of Crown Prosecutors and Defence Counsel on Impaired Driving (2009), pp. vii [para. 127]; 71 [para. 128]; 72 [para. 129].

Solomon, R., Organ, J., Abdoullaeva, M., Gwyer, L., and Chiodo, S., Alcohol, Trauma and Impaired Driving (4th Ed. 2009), generally [para. 163].

Sommers, M.S., Dyehouse, J.M., Howe, S.R., Wekselman, K., Fleming, M., Nurse I Only Had a Couple of Beers: Validity of Self-Reported Drinking Before Serious Vehicular Injury (2002), 11 Am. J. Critical Care 106, generally [para. 115].

Stowell, A.R., Gainsford, A.R., and Gullberg, R.G., New Zealand's Breath and Blood Alcohol Testing Programs: Further Data Analysis and Forensic Implications (2008), 178 Forensic Sci. Int'l 83, generally [paras. 86, 87]; p. 91 [para. 89].

Wigmore, J., Man vs Machine: Self-Reported Alcohol Consumption of Drinking Drivers vs. Evidential Breath Alcohol Tests. Is the Restriction of Evidence to the Contrary Scientifically Valid? (2009), 54 Crim. L.Q. 395, generally [para. 116]; pp. 395, 396 [para. 62]; 410 [para. 117].

Wigmore, J.G., The Purell Defence: Can the Use of Alcohol-Containing Hand Sanitizers Cause an Elevated Breath or Blood Alcohol Concentration? (2009), 42 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 147, pp. 147 to 151 [para. 85].

Wigmore, J.G., and Wilkie, M.P., A Simulation of the Effect of Blood in the Mouth on Breath Alcohol Concentrations in Drinking Subjects (2002), 35 Can. Soc. Forensic Sci. J. 9, pp. 9 to 16 [para. 85].

Counsel:

K. Sproule, for the accused/applicant;

J. Russell and A. Quist, for the respondent.

This matter was heard on May 28, 30, and 31, and June 3 and 4, 2010, before Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 29, 2010.

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 practice notes
  • R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.), (2012) 436 N.R. 199 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 13, 2011
    ...et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 39]. R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122; 2010 ABPC 319, refd to. [para. R. v. Gillespie, 2010 BCPC 207, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Muzuva (2010), 206 C.R.R.(2d) 18 (Ont. C.J.), r......
  • R. v. St‑Onge Lamoureux, [2012] 3 SCR 187
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 2, 2012
    ...713; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; R. v. Duff, 2010 ABPC 319, 501 A.R. 122; R. v. Gillespie, 2010 BCPC 207 (CanLII); R. v. Muzuva (2010), 206 C.R.R. (2d) 18; R. v. Cayer, 2010 QCCQ 9352 (CanLII); R. v. L......
  • R. v. Gunsch (B.-S.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 293 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 12, 2013
    ...subjectivity at both stages. A detailed review of the development of evidential breath-testing in Canada is recounted in R. v. Duff , 2010 ABPC 319. As the court noted in that case (at para.65): [I]t is important to recognize that creation of the offence of over 80 was intended to inject an......
  • R. v. Carver (K.B.), 2013 ABPC 189
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 17, 2013
    ...[para. 53]. R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122; 2010 ABPC 319, refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Burback (B.T.) (2012), 522 A.R. 352; 544 W.A.C. 352; 2012 ABCA 30, refd to. [para. 63]. R. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 cases
  • R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.), (2012) 436 N.R. 199 (SCC)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Supreme Court (Canada)
    • October 13, 2011
    ...et al. v. Alberta, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; 390 N.R. 202; 460 A.R. 1; 462 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 39]. R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122; 2010 ABPC 319, refd to. [para. R. v. Gillespie, 2010 BCPC 207, refd to. [para. 40]. R. v. Muzuva (2010), 206 C.R.R.(2d) 18 (Ont. C.J.), r......
  • R. v. St‑Onge Lamoureux, [2012] 3 SCR 187
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court (Canada)
    • November 2, 2012
    ...713; R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303; Alberta v. Hutterian Brethren of Wilson Colony, 2009 SCC 37, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 567; R. v. Duff, 2010 ABPC 319, 501 A.R. 122; R. v. Gillespie, 2010 BCPC 207 (CanLII); R. v. Muzuva (2010), 206 C.R.R. (2d) 18; R. v. Cayer, 2010 QCCQ 9352 (CanLII); R. v. L......
  • R. v. Gunsch (B.-S.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 293 (PC)
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • April 12, 2013
    ...subjectivity at both stages. A detailed review of the development of evidential breath-testing in Canada is recounted in R. v. Duff , 2010 ABPC 319. As the court noted in that case (at para.65): [I]t is important to recognize that creation of the offence of over 80 was intended to inject an......
  • R. v. Carver (K.B.), 2013 ABPC 189
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 17, 2013
    ...[para. 53]. R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122; 2010 ABPC 319, refd to. [para. 54]. R. v. Burback (B.T.) (2012), 522 A.R. 352; 544 W.A.C. 352; 2012 ABCA 30, refd to. [para. 63]. R. v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT