R. v. Griffin (D.), (1998) 66 O.T.C. 51 (GD)

JudgeHill, J.
CourtOntario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
Case DateMay 06, 1998
JurisdictionOntario
Citations(1998), 66 O.T.C. 51 (GD)

R. v. Griffin (D.) (1998), 66 O.T.C. 51 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] O.T.C. TBEd. JN.014

Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Donald Griffin (appellant)

(Court File No. SCA(P) 1067/97)

Indexed As: R. v. Griffin (D.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Summary Conviction Appeal Court

Central West Region

Hill, J.

May 20, 1998.

Summary:

Griffin was observed driving his motor vehicle in an aberrant manner. The witnesses contacted police. The witnesses then saw Griffin stagger about 40 feet to his residence. When police arrived at Griffin's residence they had to awaken him. Griffin stated that he had been drinking. Griffin was convicted of impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code. A conditional stay was entered on a second charge of having an excessive blood-alcohol content. Griffin appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in law (1) in reversing the burden of proof based upon Griffin's failure to testify, and (2) in finding Griffin guilty of impaired driving given the trial judge's lack of comfort as to whether Griffin may have consumed alcohol during the time gap (from the time he ceased driving until his arrest).

The Ontario Court (General Division), dismissed the appeal. The trial judge's decision was not unreasonable given the abundance of circumstantial evidence that Griffin operated his motor vehicle while impaired.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - See paragraphs 20 to 25.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gilbert (T.) (1994), 74 O.A.C. 56; 19 O.R.(3d) 724 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Noble (S.J.) (1997), 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Counsel:

A. Cornelius, for the respondent;

B. Daley, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on May 6, 1998, before Hill, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on May 20, 1998.

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