R. v. Evans (B.M.), 2014 ABCA 339

• Judge: Wakeling, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 01, 2014
• Citations: 2014 ABCA 339;(2014), 584 A.R. 263

R. v. Evans (B.M.) (2014), 584 A.R. 263; 623 W.A.C. 263 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] A.R. TBEd. OC.079

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Bryan Michael Evans (applicant)

(1403-0204-A; 2014 ABCA 339)

Indexed As: R. v. Evans (B.M.)

Alberta Court of Appeal

Wakeling, J.A.

October 17, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. He appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal. The accused applied for leave to appeal on a question of law. He asserted that the summary conviction judge erred in holding that he had no right under s. 10(b) of the Charter to retain and instruct counsel during the 17 minutes that he was detained while waiting for the police to deliver an approved screening device to the officer who demanded that he provide a breath sample forthwith.

The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., denied leave to appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - The accused was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - A summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the accused's appeal - The accused applied for leave to appeal on a question of law - He asserted that the summary conviction judge erred in holding that he had no right under s. 10(b) of the Charter to retain and instruct counsel during the 17 minutes that he was detained while waiting for the police to deliver an approved screening device to the officer who demanded that he provide a breath sample forthwith - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., denied leave to appeal - While the accused had identified a question of law, the answer to the question was settled law - Two decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and at least three decisions of the Court of Appeal had held that a detainee who submitted a sample of breath for testing in an approved screening device in accordance with the time limits prescribed by the Criminal Code had no right under s. 10(b) of the Charter to retain and instruct counsel at any time in the period preceding the breath sample provisions - This was not a question of law that the court needed to address again to promote the administration of justice and ensure that the community had faith in the fairness of criminal proceedings - The question of law had insufficient importance to the administration of justice and was not arguable - Further, there was no likelihood that the appeal would succeed.

Courts - Topic 2700

Appeal courts - General - An accused appealed a decision of a summary conviction appeal judge - The Alberta Court of Appeal, per Wakeling, J.A., discussed the function of a provincial appeal court - See paragraphs 16 to 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 1385

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7601

Summary conviction appeals - Appeal to a court of appeal - General - [See Courts - Topic 2700 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 7602

Summary conviction appeals - Appeal to a court of appeal - Requirement of leave - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 5].

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, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1994), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Nobert (R.) (1993), 145 A.R. 365; 55 W.A.C. 365 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Yuskow (1989), 52 C.C.C.(3d) 382 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 5].

Reference Re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court (P.E.I.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 3; 217 N.R. 1; 206 A.R. 1; 156 W.A.C. 1; 121 Man.R.(2d) 1; 158 W.A.C. 1; 156 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 483 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 6].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 6].

Alberta Provincial Judges' Association v. Alberta (1999), 237 A.R. 276; 197 W.A.C. 276; 177 D.L.R.(4th) 418 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 8].

Can v. Calgary Chief of Police et al. (2014), 584 A.R. 147; 623 W.A.C. 147; 2014 ABCA 322, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 8].

Dreco Energy Services Ltd. et al. v. Wenzel Downhole Tools Ltd. (2008), 440 A.R. 273; 438 W.A.C. 273; 2008 ABCA 290, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

Broome v. Cassell & Co., [1972] A.C. 1027 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 20].

Miliangos v. George Frank (Textiles) Ltd., [1975] Q.B. 487 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Mian (M.H.) (2014), 462 N.R. 1; 580 A.R. 1; 620 W.A.C. 1; 2014 SCC 54, refd to. [para. 20, footnote 11].

Yellowknife Public Denominational District Education Authority et al. v. Euchner (2008), 446 A.R. 221; 442 W.A.C. 221; 2008 NWTCA 13, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 13].

Byatt et al. v. Alberta et al. (1997), 196 A.R. 51; 141 W.A.C. 51; 144 D.L.R.(4th) 436 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22, footnote 13].

L3 Communications Spar Aerospace Ltd. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (2010), 201 L.A.C.(4th) 85, refd to. [para. 22, footnote 13].

Sherwood Steel Ltd. v. Odyssey Construction Inc., 2014 ABCA 320, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 15].

Bizon v. Bizon et al. (2014), 572 A.R. 49; 609 W.A.C. 49; 2014 ABCA 174, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 15].

Bhasin v. Hrynew et al. (2013), 544 A.R. 28; 567 W.A.C. 28; 2013 ABCA 98, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 15].

Reece et al. v. Edmonton (City) (2011), 513 A.R. 199; 530 W.A.C. 199; 2011 ABCA 238, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 15].

Ernst v. EnCana Corp. et al. (2014), 580 A.R. 341; 620 W.A.C. 341; 2014 ABCA 285, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 16].

Lubberts Estate, Re (2014), 577 A.R. 110; 613 W.A.C. 110; 2014 ABCA 216, refd to. [para. 23, footnote 18].

Boychuk v. Edmonton Police Service et al. (2014), 575 A.R. 103; 612 W.A.C. 103; 2014 ABCA 163, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 22].

R. v. R.R. (2008), 238 O.A.C. 242; 234 C.C.C.(3d) 463; 2008 ONCA 497, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 25].

Metropolitan Stores (MTS) Ltd. v. Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers, Local 832 and Labour Board (Man.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 110; 73 N.R. 341; 46 Man.R.(2d) 241, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 28].

Carleo Investments Ltd. v. Strathcona (County) et al., [2014] A.R. Uned. 304; 2014 ABCA 302, refd to. [para. 28, footnote 29].

R. v. Abouhamad (1988), 61 Alta. L.R.(2d) 356 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. George (N.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 161; 187 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Bilawey (R.) (2009), 343 Sask.R. 244; 472 W.A.C. 244; 242 C.C.C.(3d) 86; 2009 SKCA 9, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Kristensen (S.D.) (2014), 581 A.R. 318; 2014 ABQB 46, refd to. [para. 36, footnote 30].

R. v. Chaluk (K.W.) (1998), 237 A.R. 366; 197 W.A.C. 366 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cིཾté, J.E., The Appellate Craft (2009), p. 5 [para. 16, footnote 4].

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr., The Path of the Law (1897), 10 Harv. L. Rev. 457, p. 469 [para. 23, footnote 14].

Hopkins, J., The Role of an Intermediate Appeal Court (1975), 41 Brooklyn L. Rev. 459, pp. 469 [para. 23, footnote 17]; 472 [para. 17, footnote 10].

Jutras, Daniel, The Narrowing Scope of Appellate Review: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far (2006), 32 Man. L. J. 61, p. 67 [para. 21, footnote 12].

Kerans, Roger, and Willey, Kim, Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (2nd Ed. 2006), p. 7 [para. 21, footnote 12].

Leflar, Robert Allen, Internal Operating Procedures of Appellate Courts (1976), pp. 1 [para. 17, footnote 5]; 6 [para. 20]; 7 [para. 23, footnote 19].

Note, Courting Reversal: The Supervising Role of the State Supreme Courts (1978), 87 Yale L.J. 1191, pp. 1200 [para. 25, footnote 23]; 1201 [para. 28, footnote 28].

Note, To Hear or Not to Hear: A Question for the California Supreme Court (1951), 3 Stan. L. Rev. 243, pp. 250, 251 [para. 25, footnote 23].

Counsel:

J.R. Russell, for the respondent;

T.H. Kantor, for the applicant.

This application was heard on October 1, 2014, by Wakeling, J.A., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for decision on October 17, 2014.