R. v. Hall (D.E.), 2012 SKQB 233

• Judge: Currie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 07, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKQB 233;(2012), 397 Sask.R. 311 (QB)

R. v. Hall (D.E.) (2012), 397 Sask.R. 311 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.048

Her Majesty the Queen v. Daniel E. Hall

(2010 Q.B.C.A. No. 57; 2012 SKQB 233)

Indexed As: R. v. Hall (D.E.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Currie, J.

June 7, 2012.

Summary:

At 2:46 a.m., the accused was arrested at his parents' home for impaired driving and in connection with an alleged hit and run motor vehicle accident. He provided breath samples at 3:51 a.m. and 4:14 a.m. and was then placed in the detention unit at approximately 4:30 a.m. The accused was released from custody at 11:25 a.m. At his trial on charges of impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood alcohol level, the accused sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a breach of his right not to be arbitrarily detained under s. 9 of the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at (2010), 365 Sask.R. 175, allowed the application. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The stay of proceedings was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for completion of the trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - At 2:46 a.m., the accused was arrested at his parents' home for impaired driving and in connection with an alleged hit and run motor vehicle accident - He provided breath samples at 3:51 a.m. and 4:14 a.m. and was then placed in the detention unit at approximately 4:30 a.m. - The accused was released from custody at 11:25 a.m. - At his trial on impaired driving charges, the accused sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to a breach of his right not to be arbitrarily detained under s. 9 of the Charter - The trial judge allowed the application, finding that the accused had been arbitrarily detained - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench agreed with the trial judge's conclusion that the accused had been arbitrarily detained, contrary to s. 9 - Nothing countered the reasonable inference that the accused was safe for release before 11:25 a.m. or explained why he was detained after 5:30 a.m. - The court rejected the Crown's assertion that ss. 497(3) and 498(3) of the Criminal Code deemed the police to have acted lawfully - Notwithstanding those sections, the court had consistently recognized that a failure to release an accused or to take the accused before a justice of the peace might constitute an arbitrary detention - See paragraphs 9 to 28.

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - After providing breath samples, the accused was placed in the detention unit at approximately 4:30 a.m. - He was released from custody at 11:25 a.m. - The trial judge found that the accused's right not to be arbitrarily detained had been breached and granted a stay of proceedings of the impaired driving charges against the accused under s. 24(1) of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the Crown's appeal - Section 24(1) required a consideration of what was "appropriate and just in the circumstances" - However, the trial judge applied the analysis as articulated in R. v. Grant (D.) (2009 S.C.C.) for the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) - In considering a stay of proceedings, the primary factor was the connection, if any, between the Charter breach and the police investigation - That connection led to a consideration of whether a stay was a disproportionate remedy - Because the trial judge failed to anaylze that connection, his decision attracted no deference - The breach here had nothing to do with the investigation and had no effect on the accused's right to make full answer and defence - The improper detention was only a few hours and occurred after the gathering of evidence - A stay of proceedings ought not to have been entered - The stay was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial judge for completion of the trial - See paragraphs 29 to 44.

Civil Rights - Topic 8585

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Practice - Time for deciding Charter issues - At his trial on impaired driving charges, the accused sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, asserting that he had been arbitrarily detained by the police, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - The trial judge found a Charter breach and granted a stay of proceedings - The Crown appealed, asserting, inter alia, that the trial judge had erred in addressing the Charter application before rendering a verdict on the charges - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The trial judge heard all of the Crown and defence evidence and, by agreement, all of that evidence was applied both to the voir dire on the Charter application and to the trial - Having heard all of the evidence, the trial judge expressed his preference for dealing with the Charter application before hearing closing submissions on the trial proper and, therefore, before rendering a verdict on the charges - Nothing indicated that the trial judge had exercised his discretion improperly as to procedure - There was no reason to interfere with his decision to address the Charter application before rendering a verdict - See paragraphs 6 to 8.

Criminal Law - Topic 3219

Compelling appearance, detention and release - Arrest - Appearance of accused before judge or justice of the peace - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Salisbury (T.J.) (2012), 385 Sask.R. 322; 536 W.A.C. 322; 2012 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Paquette (N.) (2002), 225 Sask.R. 161; 2002 SKQB 427, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Donald (K.) (2011), 386 Sask.R. 26; 2011 SKQB 408, appld. [para. 28].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Salisbury (T.J.) (2011), 372 Sask.R. 242; 2011 SKQB 153, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Nasogaluak (L.M.), [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206; 398 N.R. 107; 474 A.R. 88; 479 W.A.C. 88; 2010 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Bryce S. Pashovitz, for the Crown;

Michael W. Owens, for Daniel E. Hall.

This appeal was heard by Currie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on June 7, 2012.