R. v. Gaudet (C.G.), (2015) 482 Sask.R. 27 (PC)

• Judge: Jackson, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: March 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 482 Sask.R. 27 (PC);2015 SKPC 48

R. v. Gaudet (C.G.) (2015), 482 Sask.R. 27 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.028

Her Majesty the Queen v. Colin George Gaudet

(Information: 24515558; 2015 SKPC 48)

Indexed As: R. v. Gaudet (C.G.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Jackson, P.C.J.

March 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged that he had the care or control of his motor vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by alcohol and secondly, that he failed or refused to provide samples of his breath at the detachment.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty of both counts.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - Sergeant Leblanc found the accused behind the wheel of his truck asleep and unresponsive - The accused was charged that he had the care or control of his motor vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by alcohol - The accused testified that: a) he attended at his boss's residence following their night shift and consumed between seven to eight beer between roughly 8:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m.; b) he knew that following such consumption he was not in a condition to drive so he intended to stay at that residence for the day prior to going to work again that evening; c) following an argument with his boss he was told to leave the premises; d) he drove a couple of blocks at which point he pulled into a residential driveway and parked the vehicle; and e) he placed the transmission in park, put the keys in his pocket, reclined the seat and went to sleep - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - The accused rebutted the presumption in s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code that he did not occupy the driver's seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion at the time he parked in the driveway - However, the court found that he had de facto or actual care or control of the motor vehicle while his ability to operate was impaired by alcohol - There was a realistic risk of danger posed in the circumstances - Considering all of the evidence as a whole, it could not be said that he posed only a remote possibility of danger in his condition to persons or property - The accused also made admissions in his testimony, stating that he drove when he knew he was in an intoxicated condition to the yard where Sergeant Leblanc found him - See paragraphs 5 to 15.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The accused was charged that he failed or refused to provide samples of his breath at the detachment - Defence counsel argued that on the totality of the evidence and having regard particularly to the fact that the Crown had not proved any nexus to alcohol consumption prior to the demand, the arresting officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - At the time the breath demand was made in the patrol car, apart from ascertaining any odour of alcohol or admission from the accused in this regard, Sergeant Leblanc had the following indicia of impairment by alcohol in his mind: a) citizen complaint that the accused was parked in a private driveway yelling obscenities when approached for assistance; b) vehicle parked in the middle of a stranger's driveway, rather than off to the side; c) driver asleep behind the wheel at just after noon; d) inability to rouse the driver for five to ten minutes despite physically prodding and shaking him; e) slurred speech; f) going in and out of consciousness; g) extreme unsteadiness on his feet, stumbling and swaying as he walked; and h) having to be physically prevented from falling to the ground - Notwithstanding no admission of alcohol consumption or smell of alcohol, the subjective belief of Sergeant Leblanc was objectively reasonable - See paragraphs 16 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - The accused was charged that he failed or refused to provide samples of his breath at the detachment - Sergeant Leblanc testified that he made the breath demand "off the card" which was his standard practice, the actual text of which was not placed into evidence - He was not cross-examined on this point nor asked to elaborate in any fashion - The accused contended that on this evidence the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that a formal breath demand was made - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - There was no statutorily prescribed text for a demand pursuant to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code - Rather, it was sufficient that by words or circumstances that the accused understood what was being requested of him - The court was satisfied that a proper breath demand was made upon the accused from which he understood what was required of him - See paragraphs 27 to 31.

Counsel:

J. Claxton, for the Crown;

P. Northcott, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Jackson, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on March 27, 2015.