R. v. Hoover (T.), (2014) 447 Sask.R. 265 (PC)

JudgeGray, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateJune 05, 2014
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations(2014), 447 Sask.R. 265 (PC);2014 SKPC 35

R. v. Hoover (T.) (2014), 447 Sask.R. 265 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.018

Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyler Hoover

(Information No. 44333890; 2014 SKPC 35)

Indexed As: R. v. Hoover (T.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Gray, P.C.J.

June 5, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified, contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code. He argued that (1) his identity had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) two documents tendered by the Crown, including the Certificate of Disqualification, were inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove that proper notice had been given.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the identity of the accused had been established. However, there was no proof that proper notice was given for the two documents that the Crown sought to introduce as proof that the accused was disqualified or prohibited from driving. Accordingly, the accused was found not guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 1388

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Driving while disqualified - Evidence - Hoover was charged with driving while disqualified, contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code - The Crown tendered a Certificate of Disqualification and Notice of Intention to Tender Certificate, and a letter from Saskatchewan Government Insurance directed to Hoover - Hoover argued that these documents were inadmissible because there was no evidence that he was given notice of the Crown's intention to tender them - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court agreed - The only other evidence of disqualification came from a statement made by Hoover to the arresting officer, where Hoover admitted knowledge of his licence disqualification - However, there was no evidence respecting the nature of that disqualification and no basis from which the court could conclude that a s. 259 offence had been committed as opposed to a violation of the Traffic Safety Act - Accordingly, Hoover was found not guilty - See paragraphs 21 to 26.

Criminal Law - Topic 5253

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Proof of - Hoover was charged with driving while disqualified - Hoover told the arresting officer his name and date of birth - The officer satisfied himself of Hoover's identity by reference to a photograph from Saskatchewan Government Insurance - Hoover argued that his identify had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt because there was no identification of him in court and the voluntariness of the statement he made to the officer respecting his name and birth date was not established - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that Hoover's identity was established - Voluntariness of the statement was not in issue because the officer was empowered by s. 209.1(2)(a) of the Traffic Safety Act to require the operator of a motor vehicle to provide his identifying information - The officer saw a person operating a motor vehicle and properly obtained his name and date of birth - That person was arrested and released on an Appearance Notice - On the date scheduled for court, Hoover's counsel appeared, entered a not guilty plea and set the matter for trial - On the trial date, the same counsel appeared and Hoover was present in court - This constituted prima facie proof of identity - See paragraphs 13 to 20.

Criminal Law - Topic 5254.1

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Effect of appearance and plea - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5253 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5344

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Statements required by statute - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5253 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cole (B.O.) et al. (2011), 517 A.R. 119; 2011 ABPC 131, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Yonis (A.A.) (2009), 469 A.R. 164; 470 W.A.C. 164; 2009 ABCA 336, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Arsenault (1975), 18 N.B.R.(2d) 67; 26 A.P.R. 67 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Kavanaugh, 2011 ABPC 288, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Keenan, [2012] Q.B.C.A. No. 28 (Sask. Q.B.), dist. [para. 9].

R. v. Vollman (1989), 79 Sask.R. 270; 1989 CarswellSask 17 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 12, 21].

R. v. Nicholson (1984), 52 A.R. 132; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 228 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1984), 56 N.R. 234; 55 A.R. 240 (S.C.C.), folld. [para. 15].

R. v. Chief, [2006] S.J. No. 710 (Prov. Ct.), folld. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Barbara Herder, for the Crown;

Ron Piché, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Gray, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on June 5, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • R v Clarke,
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 12, 2022
    ...was recently relied upon by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Philip 2022 ABCA 39.  It has been followed in Saskatchewan in R. v. Hoover 2014 SKPC 35 and in R. v. Chief, 2006 SKPC 106.  Even in R. v. Bazinet 1997 CanLII 3324 (B.C.S.C.), in which Justice Oppal distinguished it factually......
  • R. v. Wurtz,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • October 19, 2022
    ...Other Saskatchewan authorities adopting the comments in Nicholson include R v Hoover, 2014 SKPC 35, and R v W.(H.G.L.), 2002 SKPC 25, 222 Sask R 10. [42]                     &#......
2 cases
  • R v Clarke,
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • July 12, 2022
    ...was recently relied upon by our Court of Appeal in R. v. Philip 2022 ABCA 39.  It has been followed in Saskatchewan in R. v. Hoover 2014 SKPC 35 and in R. v. Chief, 2006 SKPC 106.  Even in R. v. Bazinet 1997 CanLII 3324 (B.C.S.C.), in which Justice Oppal distinguished it factually......
  • R. v. Wurtz,
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • October 19, 2022
    ...Other Saskatchewan authorities adopting the comments in Nicholson include R v Hoover, 2014 SKPC 35, and R v W.(H.G.L.), 2002 SKPC 25, 222 Sask R 10. [42]                     &#......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT