R. v. Goodman, (1980) 6 Man.R.(2d) 14 (CoCt)

• Court: Provincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: (1980), 6 Man.R.(2d) 14 (CoCt)

R. v. Goodman (1980), 6 Man.R.(2d) 14 (CoCt)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Goodman

Indexed As: R. v. Goodman

Manitoba County Court

Coleman, C.C.J.

November 3, 1980.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to ss. 234 and 235 of the Criminal Code - The accused was alone sitting behind the wheel of his parked vehicle and he did not have the keys - The trial judge acquitted the accused of impaired driving, but convicted him of refusal - The accused appealed alleging the police officer did not have reasonable grounds to approach the accused's parked vehicle, because no infraction was being committed - The Manitoba County Court dismissed the appeal and held that the reasonable grounds related to the time the demand was given, not to approaching the vehicle for purposes of inspection, which the police were free to do for proper administration of the law - See paragraphs 12 and 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 1373

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Belief by officer that offence was committed - The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to ss. 234 and 235 of the Criminal Code - The accused was alone sitting behind the wheel of his parked vehicle and he did not have the keys - The officer testified that the accused's breath smelled of alcohol, his speech was slurred and his eyes were bloodshot and glassy - The trial judge acquitted the accused of impaired driving, because he did not have care and control of the vehicle but convicted the accused of refusal - The accused appealed - The Manitoba County Court dismissed the appeal - The County Court held that the only issue was whether the officer believed the accused was impaired, because a presumption of care and control arose from the accused's occupation of the driver's seat, and although the trial judge did not make a finding on the issue, the evidence indicated the presence of the necessary belief.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brownridge (1972), 18 C.R.N.S. 308, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Nadeau (1975), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 703; 19 C.C.C. 199, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Miller (1973), 21 C.R.N.S. 211, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Chomokowski, [1973] 5 W.W.R. 184 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Taraschuk (1975), 5 N.R. 507; 62 D.L.R.(3d) 84; 25 C.C.C. 108; 30 C.R.N.S. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dobruk, [1944] 2 W.W.R. 319 (Man. C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Corbett (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Morris (1979), 27 N.R. 313 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Matchett, [1980] 2 W.W.R. 122, refd to. [para. 20].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234 [para. 3]; sect. 235(2) [para. 1]; sect. 237(1)(a) [para. 15]; sect. 748 [para. 2].

Counsel:

D. Margolis, for the appellant;

D. Melnyk, for the respondent.

This case was heard by COLEMAN, C.C.J., of the Manitoba County Court.

On November 3, 1980, COLEMAN, C.C.J., delivered the following judgment: