R. v. Farrell (L.A.), (2012) 540 A.R. 34 (QB)

• Judge: Gates, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 13, 2012
• Citations: (2012), 540 A.R. 34 (QB);2012 ABQB 274

R. v. Farrell (L.A.) (2012), 540 A.R. 34 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MY.060

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Lorin Albert Farrell (appellant)

(101316180S1; 2012 ABQB 274)

Indexed As: R. v. Farrell (L.A.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Ft. McMurray

Gates, J.

April 30, 2012.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content that exceeded the legal limit.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

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) - The accused appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content that exceeded the legal limit - He asserted that the trial judge improperly admitted the Certificate of Analysis tendered by the Crown pursuant to s. 258(1) of the Criminal Code, when the Crown had failed to establish the statutory pre-conditions for the admission of the certificate - There were two statutory pre-conditions for the admission of the certificate: proof that breath samples were taken and proof that the samples were taken pursuant to a demand under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code - The accused conceded that there was a valid demand -  The issue was whether the trial judge improperly relied upon information set forth in the not-yet admitted certificate to conclude that breath samples were taken - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The pre-conditions could be proved by inference from extrinsic evidence, including evidence of the fact that the qualified technician presented the investigating officer with a certificate - In considering this fact, the court was not considering the content of the Certificate of Analyses, but rather that a certificate had been produced to the arresting officer within the context of a chain of events related by the arresting officer relative to an impaired driving investigation - In this case, the trial judge correctly concluded that the necessary factual matrix had been established through the evidence of Sgt. Vince, including his evidence that he received a Certificate of Analyses from the qualified technician after turning the accused over to that qualified technician - The trial judge made no error in law.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Thivierge (D.A.) (2010), 486 A.R. 366; 2010 ABQB 29, refd to. [para. 14].

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. 15].

R. v. Muhlbach (J.) (2011), 503 A.R. 369; 2011 ABQB 9, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 347 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Pickles (1973), 11 C.C.C.(2d) 210; 20 C.R.N.S. 301 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hall (1981), 26 A.R. 313; 14 Alta. L.R.(2d) 326 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Zebrak (1980), 13 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Jackson (S.J.) (2005), 381 A.R. 294; 2005 ABQB 268, dist. [para. 23].

R. v. Richmond (A.T.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 389; 2007 ABPC 189, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. J.J.A. (2005), 383 A.R. 179; 2005 ABPC 168, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. van der Schoot, [1985] BCWLD 2671 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Taylor, 1986 CarswellBC 669 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Zmud, 2002 BCPC 112, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Schlegel (1985), 37 M.V.R. 267; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 436 (B.C.C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1986), 66 N.R. 79 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Boyce (D.), [1997] O.A.C. Uned. 149; 26 M.V.R.(3d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Vanderbruggen (M.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 379; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. McGee (1979), 11 C.R.(3d) 145; 45 C.C.C.(2d) 520 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Steven P. Hinkley, for the respondent;

Jamil Sawani, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on February 13, 2012, by Gates, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on April 30, 2012.