R. v. Healey (C.S.), (2012) 315 B.C.A.C. 151 (CA)
| Judge | Hall, Saunders and Chiasson, JJ.A. |
| Court | Court of Appeal (British Columbia) |
| Case Date | December 08, 2011 |
| Jurisdiction | British Columbia |
| Citations | (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 151 (CA);2012 BCCA 24 |
R. v. Healey (C.S.) (2012), 315 B.C.A.C. 151 (CA);
535 W.A.C. 151
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2012] B.C.A.C. TBEd. JA.039
Regina (respondent) v. Christopher Simon Healey (appellant)
(CA038591; 2012 BCCA 24)
Indexed As: R. v. Healey (C.S.)
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Hall, Saunders and Chiasson, JJ.A.
January 18, 2012.
Summary:
The British Columbia Provincial Court convicted Healey of impaired driving causing death. He appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Criminal Law - Topic 1362
Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - Healey was convicted of impaired driving causing death - The accident occurred at 3:18 p.m. - The road conditions were good - Healey's vehicle drifted part way onto the gravel shoulder of the highway and then over corrected, travelling into the oncoming traffic - Healey's vehicle struck the victim's vehicle almost head on - Healey was thrown from the truck and was found lying unconscious - A civilian witness noted a smell of liquor - Vodka bottles were found on the road and in Healey's vehicle - Healey slurred his words, was confused and his face was red and flushed - He was transported to hospital, where, after consulting counsel, he refused a blood sample demand - The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed Healey's appeal from the conviction - The verdict was not unreasonable - The evidence, taken as a whole, provided a sound basis for conviction - In addition to the physical symptoms exhibited by Healey, there was objective evidence to support impairment, specifically the nature of the accident, the fresh, strong smell of alcohol, which suggested that Healey had recently consumed a significant quantity of alcohol, and the liquor bottles - The only rational conclusion was that Healey was impaired by alcohol when the accident occurred - See paragraphs 13 to 19.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 1996 ABCA 23, refd to. [para. 14].
R. v. Dao (D.L.) (2009), 271 B.C.A.C. 170; 458 W.A.C. 170; 2009 BCCA 239, refd to. [para. 15].
R. v. Franklin (W.T.) (1997), 221 A.R. 356 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. Thandi (C.S.), [1998] B.C.A.C. Uned. 191 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. McConnell (J.A.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. B71; 2008 BCSC 505, refd to. [para. 16].
R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 25].
R. v. Walker (B.G.), [2008] 2 S.C.R. 245; 375 N.R. 228; 310 Sask.R. 305; 423 W.A.C. 305; 2008 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 25].
Counsel:
D.J. Marion, for the appellant;
U. Botz, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard at Victoria, B.C., on December 8, 2011, by Hall, Saunders and Chiasson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. On January 18, 2012, at Vancouver, B.C., Saunders, J.A., delivered the following reasons for judgment for the court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Devarajah (S.C.), (2015) 614 A.R. 232 (QB)
..., provides a sound basis for" the conclusion that the Accused's ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: R v Healey , 2012 BCCA 24 at paras 18-19, 26 MVR (6th) 6. For the purpose of the present matter, the answer to that question must be positive. [46] Accordingly, I co......
-
R. v. Stuart, 2017 MBQB 149
...required standard of proof that the ability to drive is actually impaired [emphasis in original]. [71] Put another way, in R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24, 26 M.V.R. (6th) 6, the Court 18 [W]e must ask whether the admissible evidence, taken as a whole, provides a sound foundation for a guilty ve......
-
R. v. Maxwell-Smith (C.J.), 2012 YKTC 76
...flowing from the resulting collision emerges in my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt. [Emphasis added] '" [131] In R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24, Sanders, J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal stated at paragraphs 18 and 19: "[18] In considering whether a verdict is unreasonable we m......
-
R v Laboucan,
...basis for” the conclusion that the accused’s ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24 (B.C. C.A.) at paras [91] In R. v. Rhyason, 2006 ABCA 367 (Alta. C.A.); aff'd. 20......
-
R. v. Devarajah (S.C.), (2015) 614 A.R. 232 (QB)
..., provides a sound basis for" the conclusion that the Accused's ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: R v Healey , 2012 BCCA 24 at paras 18-19, 26 MVR (6th) 6. For the purpose of the present matter, the answer to that question must be positive. [46] Accordingly, I co......
-
R. v. Stuart, 2017 MBQB 149
...required standard of proof that the ability to drive is actually impaired [emphasis in original]. [71] Put another way, in R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24, 26 M.V.R. (6th) 6, the Court 18 [W]e must ask whether the admissible evidence, taken as a whole, provides a sound foundation for a guilty ve......
-
R. v. Maxwell-Smith (C.J.), 2012 YKTC 76
...flowing from the resulting collision emerges in my opinion beyond a reasonable doubt. [Emphasis added] '" [131] In R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24, Sanders, J.A., writing for the Court of Appeal stated at paragraphs 18 and 19: "[18] In considering whether a verdict is unreasonable we m......
-
R v Laboucan,
...basis for” the conclusion that the accused’s ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol: R. v. Healey, 2012 BCCA 24 (B.C. C.A.) at paras [91] In R. v. Rhyason, 2006 ABCA 367 (Alta. C.A.); aff'd. 20......