R. v. Hanson (W.E.), 2014 SKPC 147

• Judge: Kovatch, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: July 23, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKPC 147;(2014), 450 Sask.R. 244 (PC)

R. v. Hanson (W.E.) (2014), 450 Sask.R. 244 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.024

Her Majesty the Queen v. Wayne Eldon Hanson

(Information No. 43792683; 2014 SKPC 147)

Indexed As: R. v. Hanson (W.E.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kovatch, P.C.J.

July 23, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, and refusing to comply with a demand to provide evidentiary breath samples.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty on the impaired charge, but guilty of refusing to provide breath samples.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - Police observed a truck in the parking lot of a bar - Its running lights were on and there was exhaust coming from the back of the truck - Hanson left the bar and got into the truck - The officers pulled up behind the truck - The truck's brake lights turned on, it moved forward about six inches and then turned off almost immediately - When police approached Hanson, a key was found in his pocket but not in the truck's ignition - Hanson was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol - Hanson testified that he did not have the ignition key, as he had given it to a friend he had been drinking with (Wilson) - He testified that he used a remote starter to turn on the vehicle, and was waiting in the truck to keep warm until a taxi arrived - Wilson, who worked in automobile parts, corroborated Hanson's story, and testified that a vehicle that had been started by a remote starter would shut down when a foot was placed on the brake, unless an ignition key was used to turn on the vehicle - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Hanson not guilty - There was significant evidence that Hanson did not have the ignition key, that the vehicle could not be put in motion, and would shut down (as it apparently did) when Hanson put his foot on the brake - Hanson had rebutted the presumption of care and control - See paragraphs 25 and 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 1377

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Refusal or failure to provide breath sample - Hanson left a bar and sat in his running truck while he waited for a taxi - He was arrested for having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired - Police made several demands for evidentiary breath samples - Hanson said "No. I haven't driven. Why should I supply a sample?" - He was charged with refusal - Defence counsel argued that Hanson acted very appropriately by calling a taxi, and to convict him of refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Hanson not guilty on the impaired charge but guilty of refusal - The police made a lawful demand and Hanson understood that demand - He clearly and intentionally refused to comply with the demand because he felt he was not legally obligated to do so - The Crown proved all of the requisite elements to establish the offence - The defence did not advance any reasonable excuse for refusing - There was no authority or jurisdiction to dismiss a charge simply because counsel argued that conviction would operate unfortunately or unfairly to an accused - See paragraphs 27 to 38.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lux (L.) (2012), 405 Sask.R. 214; 563 W.A.C. 214; 2012 SKCA 129, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Mellquist (R.K.) (2014), 439 Sask.R. 206; 2014 SKPC 48, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Higham (R.) (2014), 445 Sask.R. 318; 2014 SKPC 124, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Shuparski (D.) (2003), 232 Sask.R. 1; 294 W.A.C. 1; 2003 SKCA 22, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Boudreault (D.) (2012), 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Brahniuk (F.A.) (2002), 227 Sask.R. 135; 287 W.A.C. 135; 2002 SKCA 104, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Buckingham (R.A.) (2007), 293 Sask.R. 42; 397 W.A.C. 42; 2007 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Lewko (G.L.) (2002), 227 Sask.R. 77; 287 W.A.C. 77; 2002 SKCA 121, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Taraschuk, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 385; 5 N.R. 507, folld. [para. 33].

R. v. Friesen (C.) (2012), 395 Sask.R. 233; 2012 SKPC 59, affd. (2012), 407 Sask.R. 282; 2012 SKQB 488, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Rezansoff (C.) (2013), 431 Sask.R. 299; 2013 SKQB 384, refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Brian Hendrickson, Q.C., for the Crown;

Merv Nidesh, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, before Kovatch, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on July 23, 2014.