R. v. Greeley (M.), (2015) 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206 (NLTD(G))

JudgeThompson, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
Case DateMarch 24, 2015
JurisdictionNewfoundland and Labrador
Citations(2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206 (NLTD(G))

R. v. Greeley (M.) (2015), 365 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 206 (NLTD(G));

    1138 A.P.R. 206

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. AP.020

Her Majesty the Queen v. Megan Greeley

(201401G2271; 2015 NLTD(G)48)

Indexed As: R. v. Greeley (M.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (General)

Thompson, J.

March 24, 2015.

Summary:

The accused appealed her conviction for driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level under s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the appeal.

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) - Sometime between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m., the vehicle operated by the accused went off the road, struck and damaged a pole and extensively damaged the motor vehicle - A neighbor (Hynes) heard the crash and woke up her nephew (Kelloway) - Both of them rushed to the scene, saw the accused in the driver's seat and spoke to her - Hynes said that she could smell booze when she opened the door - Police and ambulance were called - The police officer noted that the street was wet and wrote up a report which made no mention of alcohol as a factor in the accident - He did not smell alcohol on the accused - Hynes and Kelloway mentioned their observations to the officer who then decided to made a demand for breath samples under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code - The accused was convicted of driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level under s. 253(b) - She appealed, asserting that the officer did not have sufficient reasonable grounds to make the demand for a breath sample - The officer candidly conceded not having formed his suspicion on his own at the scene and not having done so until after the information was provided by Hynes and Kelloway - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), dismissed the appeal - The learned trial judge accepted the nexus between the evidence of smell and the breath demand inquiry as justifying in the totality of the circumstances a reasonable inference by the officer that the breath of the accused itself presented odours sufficient to warrant suspicion that alcohol was present in her body - The use by the officer of it being "possibly" in her body had to be taken as not formulative of the conclusion that it was present which was not then the issue, but supportive of the subjective view of the suspicion - The officer had sufficient objective criteria by which he could reasonably infer that there existed a reasonable suspicion that the accused had driven the motor vehicle with alcohol in her body.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bussey (D.) (2013), 334 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 331; 1037 A.P.R. 331; 2013 NLTD(G) 34, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Dullah (D.) (2014), 351 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 347; 1093 A.P.R. 347 (N.L. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Kuckyt, 2008 ONCJ 414, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Mitchell (R.) (2013), 291 Man.R.(2d) 231; 570 W.A.C. 231; 2013 MBCA 44, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Schofield (A.T.) (2015), 354 N.S.R.(2d) 187; 1120 A.P.R. 187; 2015 NSCA 5, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Hendel, 1997 CarswellOnt 5727 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Thorburn, 2009 CarswellOnt 8805 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Webster, 2004 BCPC 70, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Thompson, 2003 SKPC 56, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Fisher, 2004 CarswellOnt 6568 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Johal, 2008 BCPC 338, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Brown, 2007 BCPC 152, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Bush (G.G.) (2010), 268 O.A.C. 175; 2010 ONCA 554, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Woods (J.C.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205; 336 N.R. 1; 195 Man.R.(2d) 131; 351 W.A.C. 131; 2005 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Robin C. Singleton, for the Crown;

Jonathan E. Noonan, for the accused.

This appeal was heard at St. John's, N.L., on March 24, 2015, by Thompson, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (General), who delivered the following oral reasons for decision on the same date.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT