R. v. Ellis (S.R.), (2001) 314 A.R. 84 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 03, 2001
• Citations: (2001), 314 A.R. 84 (PC);2001 ABPC 83

R. v. Ellis (S.R.) (2001), 314 A.R. 84 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2002] A.R. TBEd. AP.154

Her Majesty the Queen v. Shannon Rodger Ellis

(006602478P101001, 002; 2001 ABPC 83)

Indexed As: R. v. Ellis (S.R.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

May 3, 2001.

Summary:

An accused was charged with alcohol related driving offences. The accused applied to exclude the breath technician's certificate of analysis, asserting that the police contravened his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Alberta Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Evidence take inadmissible - An accused arrested for impaired driving was provided with telephone access at 2:05 a.m. and spoke with a lawyer until 2:32 a.m. - The arresting officer read a second breathalyzer demand at 2:32 a.m. - The accused became belligerent and aggressive and asserted that he could not comply because of asthma - The technician advised the accused that if he could yell he could provide a sample, but, if not, a blood sample would be taken - The accused asked to speak to another lawyer - The technician knew that the accused had spoken with a lawyer with expertise in defending alcohol driving offences - The technician formed the opinion that the accused was being evasive and advised him that his s. 10(b) Charter rights had been satisfied - The accused agreed to provide breath samples - Because of a lineup, the first sample was not taken until 3:02 a.m. - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the police had not contravened the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights - The accused had not exercised due diligence and, accordingly, the police were not under any further implementation duties - Alternatively, admission of the certificate of analysis would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving - Demand for breath or blood sample - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.4

Right to counsel - General - Duty of accused to act diligently - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 8].

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, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Evans, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Brydges, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 190; 103 N.R. 282; 104 A.R. 124; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 330, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 333, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 113; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 472, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 571 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Taylor (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 282; 251 A.P.R. 282; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Whitford (B.E.) (1997), 196 A.R. 97; 141 W.A.C. 97; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Lawday (C.J.) (1996), 194 A.R. 231 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gladue (V.L.) (1999), 239 A.R. 386 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Maloney (D.F.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 139; 426 A.P.R. 139; 18 M.V.R.(3d) 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Top (1989), 95 A.R. 195; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 493 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Liew (K.L.) (1998), 212 A.R. 381; 168 W.A.C. 381; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 181, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Bain, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 91; 133 N.R. 1; 51 O.A.C. 161; 69 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Friesen (C.S.) (1995), 174 A.R. 13; 102 W.A.C. 13; 101 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Warren (1997), 117 C.C.C.(3d) 418 (N.W.T.C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Sadownik (1988), 84 A.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. McCallen (J.B.) (1999), 116 O.A.C. 308; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Hawryliw (T.W.) (1994), 159 A.R. 315 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 32].

R. v. MacKay (B.R.) (2000), 265 A.R. 170 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 32].

R. v. Knook, [2000] M.J. No. 613 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 32].

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 25 O.A.C. 93; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 565, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Smith, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 368; 99 N.R. 372; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 308, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Hebert, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 151; 110 N.R. 1; 57 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Hollis (D.M.) (1992), 18 B.C.A.C. 260; 31 W.A.C. 260; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 421 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Pearson (1987), 55 Sask.R. 122 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Calder (M.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 660; 194 N.R. 52; 90 O.A.C. 18; 46 C.R.(4th) 133, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 23, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 77].

R. v. Greffe, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 755; 107 N.R. 1; 107 A.R. 1; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 77].

Counsel:

A. Finlayson, for the Crown;

V. Rendell, for the accused.

This application was heard by Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision at Edmonton, Alberta, on May 3, 2001.