R. v. Glass (T.M.), 2013 SKPC 31

• Judge: Kovatch, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 27, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2013 SKPC 31;(2013), 416 Sask.R. 47 (PC)

R. v. Glass (T.M.) (2013), 416 Sask.R. 47 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.012

Her Majesty the Queen v. Tanya Marie Glass

(Information No. 37252546; 2013 SKPC 31)

Indexed As: R. v. Glass (T.M.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kovatch, P.C.J.

February 27, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while her blood alcohol content exceeded .08 percent and with impaired driving. Defence counsel argued that the accused's right to be promptly informed of the reasons for her detention had been infringed, contrary to s. 10(a) of the Charter. Defence counsel also argued that the police officer did not have the requisite reasonable and probable grounds for the Intoxilyzer demand. As a result, the seizure of the breath samples was unlawful and infringed the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found no breach of the accused's Charter rights. The court found the accused guilty of the driving while over .08 charge and imposed a judicial stay with respect to the impaired driving charge.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - The accused was charged with driving while her blood alcohol content exceeded .08 percent and with impaired driving - Defence counsel argued that the accused's right to be promptly informed of the reasons for her detention had been infringed, contrary to s. 10(a) of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "I would conclude that the officer quite promptly made the Intoxilyzer demand, and when he did so it was apparent to the accused that she was under detention and the reason therefore. As a result, I would not conclude that there was any breach of the accused's s. 10(a) Charter right. Even if I am wrong in this conclusion however, I would still conclude that the police officer did not obtain any evidence by reason of this failure. From the time of the initial vehicle stop until the Intoxilyzer demand, he merely spoke to the accused and not in an impolite or intimidating fashion, observed her and listened to her responses. He did not compel her to submit to any sobriety tests and did not compel her to incriminate herself. In my view, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that this investigation and this evidence were proper and admissible in the case of R. v. Orbanski, 2005 SCC 37. If I were to do the analysis required by R. v. Grant, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, I would conclude that the officer's evidence was admissible" - See paragraphs 13 to 17.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3142 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The accused was charged with driving while her blood alcohol content exceeded .08 percent and with impaired driving - Defence counsel argued that the police officer did not have the requisite reasonable and probable grounds for the Intoxilyzer demand - As a result, the seizure of the breath samples was unlawful and infringed the accused's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument - The police officer testified that for the following reasons, he concluded that the accused was probably impaired by alcohol and he made the Intoxilyzer demand: (1) her driving actions (she drove to beat a light, and at a speed of 68 kph in a 50 kph zone); (2) the odour of alcohol coming from the accused; (3) slurred speech; (4) bloodshot eyes; (5) alcohol in the vehicle (open box of beer); (6) exaggerated and flamboyant language and gestures and very talkative (those traits were different than when he saw her on a previous occasion) - While the court agreed with defence counsel that the in-car video and the video at the police station did not show that the accused was impaired, those videos did not refute any of the six indicia of impairment or reasons for the Intoxilyzer demand - Given the totality of the officer's observations and evidence, the officer reasonably and rationally concluded that the accused was at least slightly impaired by alcohol, and he properly made the Intoxilyzer demand - The officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the Intoxilyzer demand and the accused's Charter rights were not infringed - See paragraphs 18 to 26.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Klug (K.W.), [2011] A.R. Uned. 240; 2011 ABPC 97, not folld. [para. 13].

R. v. Carriere (L.) (2010), 363 Sask.R. 76; 2010 SKPC 118, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2005), 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Leach (R.) (2011), 383 Sask.R. 72; 2011 SKPC 138, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Wiebe (S.) (2011), 373 Sask.R. 300; 2011 SKPC 70, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Sinclair (B.J.) (2012), 400 Sask.R. 143; 2012 SKPC 97, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Gunn (V.E.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 170; 552 W.A.C. 170; 2012 SKCA 80, refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8, sect. 9 [para. 3]; sect. 10(a) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Dana Brule, for the Crown;

Merv Nidesh, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, before Kovatch, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 27, 2013.