R. v. Figley-McBeth (M.J.), (2004) 258 Sask.R. 225 (PC)

• Judge: Kolenick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 29, 2004
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2004), 258 Sask.R. 225 (PC);2004 SKPC 119

R. v. Figley-McBeth (M.J.) (2004), 258 Sask.R. 225 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.017

Her Majesty the Queen v. Figley-McBeth (M.J.)

(Information No. 24130588; 2004 SKPC 119)

Indexed As: R. v. Figley-McBeth (M.J.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Kolenick, P.C.J.

November 29, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. During trial questions arose as to: (1) whether an off-duty member of the R.C.M.P. had lawful authority as a peace officer to conduct the investigation and make the breath demand within the corporate limits of the City of Saskatoon; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, as contemplated in s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court answered both questions in the affirmative.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content - During trial a question arose as to whether the evidence was sufficient to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable - The accused was stopped at 3:13 a.m. - The officer arrived at the attachment with the accused at 3:42 - The accused used the washroom and chatted until 4:15 when he was deliverd to the technician who observed the accused for 20 minutes before administering the breathalyzer test - The samples were taken at 4:31 and 4:51 - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, as contemplated by s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code - As such, the certificate of analysis was submitted as a full exhibit in the proceedings, and the statutory presumption was ruled applicable - See paragraphs 15 to 19.

Police - Topic 3009

Powers - While off-duty - [See Police - Topic 3072 ].

Police - Topic 3066

Powers - Arrest and detention - Limitation - Territorial jurisdiction - [See Police - Topic 3072 ].

Police - Topic 3072

Powers - Arrest and detention - Arrest without warrant - Territorial jurisdiction - The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content - During trial questions arose as to whether an off-duty member of the R.C.M.P. assigned to a regional highway patrol unit had lawful authority as a peace officer who was driving a police vehicle on his way home to conduct the investigation and make the breath demand within the corporate limits of the City of Saskatoon - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the officer had the lawful authority as a member of the R.C.M.P. to conduct the investigation of the accused's conduct and to make the breath demand, even though all of that occurred within the corporate limits of the City of Saskatoon, and when he was off duty - Neither the pertinent legislation nor the federal/provincial agreement precluded that nature of conduct, even in the absence of a specific policing contract between the R.C.M.P. and the City of Saskatoon - See paragraphs 20 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hout (M.) (No. 3) (2001), 209 Sask.R. 171 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Abrametz (J.S.) (2000), 197 Sask.R. 284; 7 M.V.R.(4th) 33 (Prov. Ct.), affd. (2001), 206 Sask.R. 315 (Q.B.), consd. [para. 21].

R. v. Soucy (1975), 11 N.B.R.(2d) 75; 7 A.P.R. 75; 23 C.C.C.(2d) 561 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Wasylyk (C.P.) (2004), 246 Sask.R. 188, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Bruce Bauer, for the Crown;

Peter Abrametz, for the accused.

This interim matter was heard before Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 29, 2004.