R. v. Gratton (A.L.), (2002) 329 A.R. 208 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 03, 2002
• Citations: (2002), 329 A.R. 208 (QB);2003 ABQB 8

R. v. Gratton (A.L.) (2002), 329 A.R. 208 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. JA.037

Her Majesty the Queen v. Aime Leo Gratton

(Action No. 0160 51344 Q1; 2003 ABQB 8)

Indexed As: R. v. Gratton (A.L.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of St. Paul

Watson, J.

December 3, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was charged with numerous offences arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities, including leaving the scene of the accident. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of certain evidence relating to impairment (i.e., Charter issues).

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dealt with the admissibility issues accord­ingly.

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - The accused was charged with numerous offen­ces arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities, including leaving the scene of the accident - Following the accident he abandoned his vehicle and fled - He was later found by police hiding in a shed - The police searched his vehicle without a warrant and found liquor bottles - They subsequently searched the vehicle again - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the police did not violate the accused's s. 8 Charter rights in their handling of the vehicle - There was a diminished expectation of privacy in a vehicle as compared to a private residence and the vehicle was completely abandoned reducing the expectation of privacy even further - The vehicle was owned by a numbered company, not the accused - The vehicle was physical evidence of a fatal car crash - See paragraphs 143 to 155.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The accused was charged with numerous offences arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities, including leaving the scene of the accident - The accused was located in a shed near the accident scene and taken to hospital before having the opportunity to contact counsel - At the hospital the police officer accompanying the accused asked if he had anything to drink since the accident - The accused replied that he had drank a "26 of rum" - He and the officer had a brief discussion about what the accused had to drink during the evening - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that these statements were inadmissible as being taken in violation of s. 10(b) of the Charter - The accused had indicated his desire to contact counsel so the officer was obliged to refrain from eliciting incriminat­ing evidence from the accused until he had talked to counsel - Admission of this type of evidence would be ajudicatively unfair -See paragraphs 180 to 198.

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - The accused was charged with numerous offences arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving five fatalities, including leaving the scene of the accident - The police found the accused and took him to the hospital - Subsequently, while at the police station the accused insisted on speaking only to a particular lawyer, who could not be reached - The police officer ultimately advised the accused that he should try to get in contact with another lawyer or else he would be charged with failing to submit to a breathalyzer - The accused decided to take the breathalyzer test and commented that it would not matter anyway because he had already told the officer he had drank after the accident - The accused took the test, by this time some 4.5 hours after the accident, and registered 70 and 80 - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench admitted the accused's statement about drinking after the accident, but held that the breath tests were not admissible - He had not waived his right to counsel, rather his right to continue trying to contact counsel of choice was just terminated - See para­graphs 199 to 234.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.6

Right to counsel - Right to counsel of choice - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See both Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1379

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility where counsel denied (incl. refusal) - [See second Civil Rights - Topic 4602 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Darrach (A.S.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; 259 N.R. 336; 137 O.A.C. 91; 148 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 191 D.L.R.(4th) 539; 36 C.R.(5th) 223; 78 C.R.R.(2d) 53, refd to. [para. 15, footnote 2].

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; [1992] 1 W.W.R. 97; 8 C.R.(4th) 277; 83 Alta. L.R.(2d) 193, refd to. [para. 48, footnote 3].

R. v. Regan (G.A.) (2002), 282 N.R. 1; 201 N.S.R.(2d) 63; 629 A.P.R. 63; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 49 C.R.(5th) 1; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 41; 91 C.R.R.(2d) 51 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 4].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 36 O.R.(3d) 418n; 50 C.B.R.(3d) 163; 33 C.C.E.L.(2d) 173; 98 C.L.L.C. 210-006, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 5].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 171 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 23 C.R.(5th) 197; [1999] 2 C.N.L.R. 252, refd to. [para. 83, footnote 6].

Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex et al. (2002), 287 N.R. 248; 166 B.C.A.C. 1; 271 W.A.C. 1; 212 D.L.R.(4th) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 7].

R. v. Jarvis (W.J.) (2002), 295 N.R. 201; 317 A.R. 1; 284 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 83, footnote 8].

R. v. Mac (M.K.) (2002), 287 N.R. 75; 159 O.A.C. 33; 163 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 85, footnote 9].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 47 C.R.R. 210, refd to. [para. 87, footnote 10].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 31 C.R.(4th) 60; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160; 3 M.V.R.(4th) 1; 18 O.R.(3d) 800, refd to. [para. 88, footnote 11].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392; 46 C.R.(4th) 74 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 205 N.R. 158; 193 A.R. 79; 135 W.A.C. 79; 106 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 12].

R. v. Schnell, [1976] 5 W.W.R. 298 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 13].

R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 347; 4 M.V.R. 192 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 113, footnote 14].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 15].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 144, footnote 16].

R. v. Belnavis (A.) and Lawrence (C.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 341; 216 N.R. 161; 103 O.A.C. 81; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 405; 151 D.L.R.(4th) 443; 10 C.R.(5th) 65; 29 M.V.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 149, foot­note 17].

R. v. Law - see R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al.

R. v. 2821109 Canada Inc. et al. (2002), 281 N.R. 267; 245 N.B.R.(2d) 270; 636 A.P.R. 270; 208 D.L.R.(4th) 207; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 48 C.R.(5th) 199 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 150, footnote 18].

R. v. Caslake (T.L.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 51; 221 N.R. 281; 123 Man.R.(2d) 208; 159 W.A.C. 208; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 155 D.L.R.(4th) 19; 13 C.R.(5th) 1; 48 C.R.R.(2d) 189, refd to. [para. 153, footnote 19].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 257; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 111; 24 C.R.(5th) 201; 42 M.V.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 157, footnote 20].

R. v. Paternak (C.D.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 607; 203 N.R. 250; 187 A.R. 395; 127 W.A.C. 395; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 382, refd to. [para. 165, footnote 21].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313; 4 C.R.(4th) 125; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 370, refd to. [para. 166, footnote 22].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 45 C.R.R. 245; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; 20 M.V.R.(2d) 1; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 193, refd to. [para. 166, footnote 23].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 11; 32 C.R.(4th) 1; 23 C.R.R.(2d) 6, refd to. [para. 168, footnote 24].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 3; 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 257; 36 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 169, footnote 25].

R. v. Tessier (C.S.) (2002), 289 N.R 203; 250 N.B.R.(2d) 203; 650 A.P.R. 203; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 478 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 169, footnote 26].

R. v. Ibrahim, [1914] A.C. 599 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 27].

R. v. Sawchyn, [1981] 5 W.W.R. 207; 30 A.R. 314; 60 C.C.C.(2d) 200; 22 C.R.(3d) 34; 124 D.L.R.(3d) 600 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1981] 2 S.C.R. xi; 39 N.R. 616; 33 A.R. 98, refd to. [para. 176, footnote 28].

R. v. Rennie (1981), 74 Cr. App. R. 207 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 176, footnote 29].

R. v. Liew (K.L.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 227; 244 N.R. 249; 244 A.R. 1; 209 W.A.C. 1; [1999] 9 W.W.R. 538; 137 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 27 C.R.(5th) 29, refd to. [para. 179, footnote 30].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 124 D.L.R.(4th) 7; 38 C.R.(4th) 265; 28 C.R.R.(2d) 244, refd to. [para. 189, footnote 31].

R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 48 C.R.(4th) 297, refd to. [para. 190, footnote 32].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 7 C.R.(5th) 101; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634, refd to. [para. 190, foot­note 33].

R. v. Hamelin (E.O.) (2001), 297 A.R. 201 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 191, footnote 34].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 38 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 194, foot­note 35].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 33 C.R.(4th) 85; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 154; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 181, refd to. [para. 194, footnote 36].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 83, refd to. [para. 194, footnote 37].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 37 C.R.R. 369; 67 C.R.(3d) 209, refd to. [para. 201, foot­note 38].

R. v. Goodine (1989), 97 A.R. 102; 13 M.V.R.(2d) 330 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201, footnote 39].

R. v. Elefante (1986), 72 A.R. 162; 47 M.V.R. 170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 201, footnote 40].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 571; 6 M.V.R.(4th) 183; 85 Alta. L.R.(3d) 217 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 203, footnote 41].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 529; 7 O.R.(3d) 337; 12 C.R.(4th) 58; 9 C.R.R.(2d) 360; 34 M.V.R.(2d) 296 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 204, footnote 42].

R. v. Borden (J.R.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 145; 171 N.R. 1; 134 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 383 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 404; 119 D.L.R.(4th) 74; 33 C.R.(4th) 147; 24 C.R.R.(2d) 51, refd to. [para. 204, foot­note 43].

R. v. Tremblay, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 435; 79 N.R. 153; 25 O.A.C. 93; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 565; 45 D.L.R.(4th) 445; 60 C.R.(3d) 59; 32 C.R.R. 381; 2 M.V.R.(2d) 289, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 44].

R. v. Dixon (S.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 244; 222 N.R. 243; 166 N.S.R.(2d) 241; 498 A.P.R. 241; 122 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 C.R.(5th) 217; 50 C.R.R.(2d) 208, refd to. [para. 209, footnote 45].

R. v. Sadownik (1988), 84 A.R. 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 211, footnote 46].

R. v. Jacobs (1986), 74 A.R. 252; 31 C.C.C.(3d) 40; 54 C.R.(3d) 352; 48 Alta. L.R.(2d) 81; 27 C.R.R. 117 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 217, footnote 47].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 225, foot­note 48].

R. v. Fliss (P.W.), [2002] 4 W.W.R. 395; 283 N.R. 120; 163 B.C.A.C. 1; 267 W.A.C. 1; 161 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 49 C.R.(5th) 395; 209 D.L.R.(4th) 347, refd to. [para. 226, footnote 49].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [para. 182].

Counsel:

D. Drissell and J. Snider, for the Crown;

D. Cunningham, for the accused.

This action was heard by Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who gave oral reasons on December 3, 2002, with the following written reasons dated at Edmonton, Alberta, on January 6, 2003.