R. v. Guenter (P.), 2016 ONCA 572

• Judge: Weiler, Tulloch and D. Brown, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: January 18, 2016
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: 2016 ONCA 572;(2016), 350 O.A.C. 318 (CA)

R. v. Guenter (P.) (2016), 350 O.A.C. 318 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2016] O.A.C. TBEd. JL.016

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Peter Guenter (appellant)

(C55574; 2016 ONCA 572)

Indexed As: R. v. Guenter (P.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Weiler, Tulloch and D. Brown, JJ.A.

July 19, 2016.

Summary:

The accused's vehicle ran into another vehicle, injuring three of the four occupants of the other vehicle. The accused was convicted of three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm. The accused appealed his convictions. The accused argued that the trial judge erred in allowing statements made by the accused at the collision scene to be used as evidence against him on the substantive charges. He argued that the utterances he made could not be used as evidence against him because they were statutorily-compelled statements made pursuant to the requirement to make an accident report in s. 199(1) of the Highway Traffic Act or were made when the accused was detained, but had not yet exercised his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter. The accused also argued that the trial judge erred in admitting the results of breath samples taken from him at the police station. No breath sample demand was made of the accused at the collision scene. The trial judge found that a demand made later at the police station by the breathalyzer technician satisfied the requirement of s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code that a demand be made "as soon as practicable". The accused raised the issue of whether to comply with s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code the police officer at the scene of the accident had to make a demand for a breath sample or whether the demand might be made by a breath technician at the police station.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The court held that the trial judge properly admitted into evidence the statements the accused made to the police at the scene of the collision. The demand for his breath samples complied with s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code and, in any event, the trial judge made no error in admitting the test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Breath or blood samples - See paragraphs 64 to 94.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - See paragraphs 31 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 4328

Protection against self-incrimination - Self-incriminating statements - Statements made under statutory compulsion - See paragraphs 25 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 4613

Right to counsel - General - Requirement of arrest or detention and notice of reasons for - - See paragraphs 31 to 63.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - See paragraphs 95 to 98.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - See paragraphs 64 to 94.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - See paragraphs 64 to 94.

Criminal Law - Topic 5339

Evidence - Witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Admissibility - Statements made under statutory compulsion - See paragraphs 25 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 5352

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Statements to a person in authority - See paragraphs 31 to 63.

Counsel:

Solomon Friedman, for the appellant;

J. Sandy Tse, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 18, 2016, before Weiler, Tulloch and D. Brown, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The following decision was delivered for the court by D. Brown, J.A., on July 19, 2016.