R. v. O'Grady (J.), (2014) 357 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 345 (NLPC)

• Judge: Walsh, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: October 29, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2014), 357 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 345 (NLPC);2014 NLPC 0113

R. v. O'Grady (J.) (2014), 357 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 345 (NLPC);

    1109 A.P.R. 345

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. OC.006

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jason O'Grady

(2014 NLPC 0113A03021)

Indexed As: R. v. O'Grady (J.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Walsh, P.C.J.

May 22, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged under s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code with operating a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court dismissed the charge.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The arresting officer testified that the accused's breath samples were taken at 3:56 a.m. and 4:12 a.m. - The certificate of analyses was admitted into evidence - It showed that the tests were administered at 3:56 a.m. and 4:17 a.m. - When asked to read the results into the record, the officer read the first test as having been taken at 3:56 a.m. and the second at 4:12 a.m. - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court held that the error in the certificate was not adequately explained - Therefore, the Crown could not rely on the presumption of accuracy in s. 258(1)(g) of the Criminal Code - The court rejected the Crown's assertion that the accused's challenge to the certificate was too late - This was not an admissibility argument - The accused had legitimately raised the allegation that the times shown on the certificate were not accurate - The Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had breached s. 253(1)(b) of the Code - The charge was dismissed.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Budvessel (L.J.), [1992] B.C.T.C. Uned. 654 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Michel (J.) (2011), 383 Sask.R. 140 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Cardinal (S.R.) (2001), 301 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Ryden (M.J.) (1993), 145 A.R. 194; 55 W.A.C. 194 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Gundy (T.) (2008), 235 O.A.C. 236 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Chaudry, [2010] O.J. No. 1132 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Kutynec (1992), 52 O.A.C. 59; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Enden (A.) (2007), 304 Sask.R. 283; 413 W.A.C. 283; 52 M.V.R.(5th) 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Bykowski (1980), 23 A.R. 426; 54 C.C.C.(2d) 398 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1980), 33 N.R. 584; 24 A.R. 360 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Rebelo (A.), [2003] O.T.C. 1040 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Suttie (S.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 148 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Arrechea, [2006] O.J. No. 1562 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. O'Dea (S.) (2013), 337 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 183; 1047 A.P.R. 183 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Klassen (1986), 45 M.V.R. 5 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

Counsel:

Michael G. Murray, for the Crown;

Robert E. Simmonds, Q.C., for the accused.

This case was heard at St. John's, N.L., on October 29, 2013, and March 18 and April 2, 2014, by Walsh, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 22, 2014.