R. v. Hall (S.), (2007) 219 O.A.C. 251 (CA)
Judge | Rosenberg, Goudge and LaForme, JJ.A. |
Court | Court of Appeal (Ontario) |
Case Date | December 21, 2006 |
Jurisdiction | Ontario |
Citations | (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251 (CA);2007 ONCA 8;83 OR (3d) 641;[2007] CarswellOnt 52;[2007] OJ No 49 (QL);219 OAC 251;41 MVR (5th) 8;71 WCB (2d) 921 |
R. v. Hall (S.) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251 (CA)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2007] O.A.C. TBEd. JA.031
Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Shawn Hall (appellant)
(C42710)
Indexed As: R. v. Hall (S.)
Ontario Court of Appeal
Rosenberg, Goudge and LaForme, JJ.A.
January 10, 2007.
Summary:
The Ontario Superior Court found the accused guilty of impaired driving causing death, driving with blood-alcohol over 80 and dangerous driving causing death. The court sentenced the accused to four years and 10 months in gaol. A 10 year driving prohibition was also imposed. See [2004] O.T.C. 1039. The accused appealed against conviction and sentence.
The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part. The conviction for driving with blood-alcohol over 80 was quashed. The appeal was dismissed for the rest.
Criminal Law - Topic 57
General principles - Protection against self-incrimination - Unfavourable inference from accused's failure to testify or call evidence - The accused was charged with impaired driving offences after a fatal accident - Unable to rely on the presumption found in s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, the Crown introduced expert evidence to the effect that the accused’s blood-alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the accident - The defence countered by arguing that the accused had engaged in "bolus drinking" - The accused did not testify - The trial judge drew an adverse inference against the accused from his failure to testify - The accused was convicted - The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the trial judge was entitled to draw the adverse inference - The trial judge was always aware of the burden of proof and where it lay - There was evidence, which she accepted, to prove the accuracy of the expert’s calculation - That conclusion was reached without any reliance on an adverse inference, and without in any way shifting the onus of proof from the prosecution - See paragraphs 22 to 28.
Criminal Law - Topic 1376
Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Proof of blood-alcohol content - The accused was charged with impaired driving offences after a fatal accident - The Crown relied on an expert who opined that the accused’s blood-alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the accident - The defence countered by calling a witness who testified that the accused had engaged in "bolus drinking" immediately before the accident - The trial judge disbelieved the witness - She relied on the expert’s opinion and found that the accused’s blood-alcohol level was over 80 at the time of the accident - The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ruling - Having rejected the defence witness’ evidence, there was no evidence whatsoever of bolus drinking, nor was there any other evidence to undermine the common-sense inference of drinking at a normal pace, on which the trial judge was entitled to rely - The trial judge was fully aware that the Crown had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did not engage in bolus drinking immediately before the accident - She was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt - Her conclusions were wholly supported by the evidence - See paragraphs 10 to 21.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), consd. [para. 11].
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.), consd. [para. 25].
Counsel:
Gregory Lafontaine and Vincenzo Rondinelli, for the appellant;
James V. Palangio, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on December 21, 2006, by Rosenberg, Goudge and LaForme, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by LaForme, J.A., and released on January 10, 2007.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.), (2012) 436 N.R. 199 (SCC)
...refd to. [paras. 95, 174]. R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 29 O.R.(3d) 785 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 95, 174]. R. v. Hall (S.) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251; 83 O.R.(3d) 641; 2007 ONCA 8, refd to. [paras. 95, R. v. Bulman (W.) (2007), 221 O.A.C. 210; 2007 ONCA 169, refd to. [paras. 95, 174]......
-
R. v. St‑Onge Lamoureux, [2012] 3 SCR 187
...2000 SCC 46, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; R. v. Paszczenko, 2010 ONCA 615, 103 O.R. (3d) 424; R. v. Grosse (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 785; R. v. Hall, 2007 ONCA 8, 83 O.R. (3d) 641; R. v. Bulman, 2007 ONCA 169, 221 O.A.C. 210. By Cromwell J. (dissenting in part) R. v. Carter (1985), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 174; R......
-
Table of cases
...25 O.R. (3d) 363, [1995] O.J. No. 2428 (C.A.) ............................................. 420 R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641, 219 O.A.C. 251, 2007 ONCA 8 .................. 332 R. v. Hall (2013), 114 O.R. (3d) 393, 1 C.R. (7th) 384, 2013 ONSC 834 ........... 450 R. v. Hall, [1998] B.......
-
Table of Cases
...25 O.R. (3d) 363, [1995] O.J. No. 2428 (C.A.) ............................................ 387 R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641, 219 O.A.C. 251, 2007 ONCA 8 .................. 308 R. v. Hall, [1998] B.C.J. 2515, 1998 CanLII 3955 (S.C.) ..................................... 468 R. v. Hami......
-
R. v. St‑Onge Lamoureux, [2012] 3 SCR 187
...2000 SCC 46, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 443; R. v. Paszczenko, 2010 ONCA 615, 103 O.R. (3d) 424; R. v. Grosse (1996), 29 O.R. (3d) 785; R. v. Hall, 2007 ONCA 8, 83 O.R. (3d) 641; R. v. Bulman, 2007 ONCA 169, 221 O.A.C. 210. By Cromwell J. (dissenting in part) R. v. Carter (1985), 19 C.C.C. (3d) 174; R......
-
R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.), (2012) 436 N.R. 199 (SCC)
...refd to. [paras. 95, 174]. R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 29 O.R.(3d) 785 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 95, 174]. R. v. Hall (S.) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251; 83 O.R.(3d) 641; 2007 ONCA 8, refd to. [paras. 95, R. v. Bulman (W.) (2007), 221 O.A.C. 210; 2007 ONCA 169, refd to. [paras. 95, 174]......
-
R. v. Ruizfuentes (H.S.), 2010 MBCA 90
...Appendix]. R. v. Regnier (R.H.) (2002), 219 Sask.R. 316; 272 W.A.C. 316; 2002 SKCA 82, refd to. [para. 18, Appendix]. R. v. Hall (S.) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251; 83 O.R.(3d) 641 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, R. v. Bear (C.C.) (2008), 320 Sask.R. 12; 444 W.A.C. 12; 2008 SKCA 172, refd to. [para. 1......
-
R. v. Brogan (P.), (2008) 267 N.S.R.(2d) 255 (PC)
...R. v. Kwasnica (T.D.), [2006] B.C.T.C. 1216 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 122]. R. v. Hall (S.), [2004] O.T.C. 1039 (Sup. Ct.), affd. (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (2007), 379 N.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 133]. R. v. J.L. (2006), 206 O.A.C. 205 (C.A.), ref......
-
USPTO Adjusts Fees For Trademark Services
...class) Processing fee for failing to meet TEAS Plus requirements: $100 per class (Down from $125 per class) Post Registration Fees: Section 8 or 71 declaration filed through TEAS: $225 per (Up from $125 per class) New fee for deleting goods, services, and/or classes from a registration afte......
-
Table of cases
...25 O.R. (3d) 363, [1995] O.J. No. 2428 (C.A.) ............................................. 420 R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641, 219 O.A.C. 251, 2007 ONCA 8 .................. 332 R. v. Hall (2013), 114 O.R. (3d) 393, 1 C.R. (7th) 384, 2013 ONSC 834 ........... 450 R. v. Hall, [1998] B.......
-
Table of Cases
...25 O.R. (3d) 363, [1995] O.J. No. 2428 (C.A.) ............................................ 387 R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641, 219 O.A.C. 251, 2007 ONCA 8 .................. 308 R. v. Hall, [1998] B.C.J. 2515, 1998 CanLII 3955 (S.C.) ..................................... 468 R. v. Hami......
-
Table of Cases
...363, [1995] O.J. No. 2428 (C.A.) ............................................ 384 Table of Cases 577 R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641, 219 O.A.C. 251, 2007 ONCA 8 .................. 307 R. v. Hall, [1998] B.C.J. 2515 (S.C.) ......................................................................
-
80 and Over: Section 320.14(1)(b)
...inference in a particular case: R v Bulman , 2007 ONCA 169, 221 OAC 210 at para 13. See also R v Grosse (1996), 29 OR (3d) 785; R v Hall , 2007 ONCA 8, 83 OR (3d) 641; R v Paszczenko , 2010 ONCA 615, 103 OR (3d) 424. I would apply the same principle to drinking after driving but before the ......