R. v. Durham (D.G.), (1994) 137 N.S.R.(2d) 128 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Batiot, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: November 07, 1994
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 128 (ProvCt)

R. v. Durham (D.G.) (1994), 137 N.S.R.(2d) 128 (ProvCt);

  391 A.P.R. 128

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty The Queen v. Derek George Durham

(Nos. 147878; 147879)

Indexed As: R. v. Durham (D.G.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Batiot, P.C.J.

November 30, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing a breathalyzer demand, contrary to ss. 253(a) and 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused of both charges. The Crown failed to prove the accused's ability to drive was impaired. The accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied and the court excluded the evidence of the refusal under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4605

Right to counsel - Denial of - Due to lack of time or opportunity - An accused given a breathalyzer demand and advised of his right to counsel tried for 20 minutes to call lawyers on a Legal Aid list - He was unsuccessful - The police interrupted his attempts, demanding that he provide a breath sample - The accused was diligent­ly attempting to contact a lawyer and had not waived his rights - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was denied, where he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to retain and instruct counsel - The court excluded the evidence of the refusal from evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter - See paragraphs 17 to 32.

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - Waiver or abandonment of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4605 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evi­dence and proof - The accused admitted drinking two beer and two rums over a seven hour period - Police conceded that the accused's speech was not slurred - Redness in the accused's eyes was satis­factorily explained (contact lenses in too long) - At the police station, the accused was steady on his feet - There were no signs of a lack of coordination - The accused exhibited a moderate smell of alcohol - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the alcohol the accused admittedly consumed impaired his ability to drive a motor vehicle - See paragraphs 11 to 16.

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. 11].

R. v. White (G.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 143; 367 A.P.R. 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Matheson (R.N.) (1994), 172 N.R. 108; 123 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 271; 382 A.P.R. 271 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Bartle (K.) (1994), 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Pozniak (W.) (1994), 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Cobham (1994), 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Harper (1994), 172 N.R. 91; 97 Man.R.(2d) 1; 79 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330; 74 C.R.(3d) 129; [1990] 2 W.W.R. 220; 71 Alta. L.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 67 C.R.(3d) 209; 37 C.R.R. 369, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144; 3 C.R.R. 315, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. M.B.P., [1994] 1 S.C.R. 555; 165 N.R. 321; 70 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Jones (S.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 229; 166 N.R. 321; 43 B.C.A.C. 241; 69 W.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; [1990] 5 W.W.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 145; 49 C.R.R. 114; 47 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 7 [para. 30]; sect. 10(b) [para. 18]; sect. 24(2) [para. 28].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253(a), sect. 254(5) [para. 1]; sect. 258(1)(c)(ii) [para. 25].

Counsel:

Alanna Murphy, for the Crown;

Duncan R. Beveridge, for the accused.

This case was heard on November 7, 1994, at Halifax, N.S., before Batiot, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on November 30, 1994.