R. v. Graat

• Jurisdiction: Federal Jurisdiction (Canada)
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Judge: Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.
• Citation: (1982), 45 N.R. 451 (SCC),31 CR (3d) 289,[1982] SCJ No 102 (QL),45 NR 451,9 WCB 21,[1982] ACS no 102,2 CCC (3d) 365,[1982] CarswellOnt 101,[1982] 2 SCR 819,144 DLR (3d) 267,1982 CanLII 33 (SCC),18 MVR 287
• Date: 21 December 1982

R. v. Graat (1982), 45 N.R. 451 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Graat

Indexed As: R. v. Graat

Supreme Court of Canada

Ritchie, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Wilson, JJ.

December 21, 1982.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 234 of the Criminal Code of Canada. The trial judge convicted the accused and relied on opinion evidence of two police officers. The accused appealed on the ground that the opinion evidence was inadmissible.

The Ontario County Court dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment of the Court of Appeal is set out below - see paragraphs 63 to 103. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Evidence - Topic 7114

Opinion evidence - Non-expert opinion evidence - Intoxication and impairment - Charge of impaired driving - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the decision of a trial judge to admit opinion evidence of police officers respecting whether the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

Evidence - Topic 7111

Opinion evidence - Non-expert evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to the general principles to be followed in determining the admissibility of opinion evidence by non-expert witnesses (see paragraphs 44 to 47).

Evidence - Topic 507

Presentation of evidence - Effect of failure of counsel to object to the admission of inadmissible evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the failure of defence counsel to object to the admission of inadmissible evidence should not preclude an order for a new trial (see paragraph 9).

Evidence - Topic 250

Weight of evidence - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the weight of the evidence is entirely a matter for the trial judge or the trial judge and jury (see paragraph 54).

Evidence - Topic 7113

Opinion evidence - Non-expert evidence - Prohibited matters - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a non-expert cannot give opinion evidence on a legal issue, such as, whether a person was negligent (see paragraph 56).

Evidence - Topic 10

Question of law and fact distinguished - The Supreme Court of Canada stated that a question of whether a person's ability to drive is impaired by alcohol is a question of fact and not law - The court also stated that a question of negligence is partly fact and partly law (see paragraph 56).

Cases Noticed:

Wright v. Tatham (1837-38), 4 Bing. (N.C.) 489, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. German (1947), 89 C.C.C. 90, refd to. [paras. 18 and 81].

R. v. Marks, [1952] O.W.N. 608, refd to. [paras. 20 and 82].

R. v. Zarins (1959), 125 C.C.C. 375, refd to. [paras. 21 and 83].

R. v. Beauvais, [1965] 3 C.C.C. 281 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [paras. 23 and 87].

R. v. Pollock (1947), 90 C.C.C. 171, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Cox, [1949] 1 D.L.R. 524; 93 C.C.C. 32 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24 and 83].

Giddings v. R. (1947), 89 C.C.C. 346, refd to. [paras. 25 and 87].

R. v. Smith (1948), 17 F.L.J. 241, refd to. [paras. 25 and 87].

Grimsteit v. McDonald (1950), 96 C.C.C. 272, refd to. [paras. 25 and 87].

R. v. MacDonald (1966-67), 9 Cr. L. Qtly 239 (N.S.), refd to. [paras. 26 and 88].

R. v. Davies, [1962] 1 W.L.R. 1111, refd to. [paras. 27 and 95].

R. v. Neil (1962), Crim. L.R. 698, refd to. [para. 28].

Attorney General (Ruddy) v. Kenny (1960), 94 Irish L. Times 185, refd to. [paras. 29 and 94].

Sherrard v. Jacob, [1965] N. Ire. L.R. 151, refd to. [paras. 30 and 96].

Burrows v. Hanlin, [1930] S.A. State R. 54, refd to. [paras. 31 and 91].

R. v. Spooner, [1957] V.L.R. 540, folld. [para. 31], refd to. [para. 92].

Blackie v. Police, [1966] N.Z.L.R. 910, refd to. [paras. 33 and 97].

R. v. Dixon, [1965] 2 O.R. 540, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317; 20 C.R. 412; 14 W.W.R. 500, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Kelly, [1958] V.L.R. 412, refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Fisher, [1961] O.W.N. 94, aff'd., [1961] S.C.R. 535, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. St. Pierre (1974), 17 C.C.C.(2d) 489, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Lupien, [1970] S.C.R. 263, refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. French (1978), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 201, aff'd. (1979), 28 N.R. 100; 47 C.C.C.(2d) 411 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 101].

R. v. Neil, [1957] S.C.R. 685, refd to. [para. 102].

R. v. Cooper (1980), 31 N.R. 234; 13 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 102].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence, (5th Ed. 1979), pages 442 [paras. 13 and 80], 443 [para. 49], 451 [para. 34], 453 [para. 101].

Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. 7, Chadbourn Ed., paragraphs 1917 [para. 37], 1920 [paras. 39 and 100], 1921 [para. 40].

Law Reform Commission of Canada, Report on Evidence (1975), Evidence Code, s. 67 [para. 41].

Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on the Law of Evidence (1976), page 150 [para. 42].

Wharton's Criminal Evidence (13th Ed. 1973), paragraph 607 [para. 81].

Counsel:

Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., for the appellant;

Douglas C. Hunt, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by RITCHIE, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and WILSON, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada at Ottawa, Ontario on October 12, 1982.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered by DICKSON, J., on December 21, 1982.