R. v. Husulak (W.N.), (2006) 283 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

• Judge: Klebuc, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: June 20, 2006
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2006), 283 Sask.R. 31 (QB);2006 SKQB 284

R. v. Husulak (W.N.) (2006), 283 Sask.R. 31 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] Sask.R. TBEd. JL.065

Wayne Nicholas Husulak (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2004 Q.B.C.A. No. 37; 2006 SKQB 284)

Indexed As: R. v. Husulak (W.N.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Klebuc, J.

June 20, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content and impaired driving. The accused alleged breaches of ss. 9 and 10(b) of the Charter and applied to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 248 Sask.R. 66, found technical breaches of the Charter but declined to exclude the evidence. The court convicted the accused of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level and acquitted him of impaired driving. The accused appealed his conviction.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - At 11:27 a.m., the police pulled the accused over and took him to the cruiser to check his license - At 11:29 a.m., the officer smelled alcohol on the accused - At 11:30 a.m., the officer requested an approved screening device (ASD) from the office - By 11:40 a.m., the officer had completed the check of the accused's license - At 11:46 a.m. the ASD was brought to the scene - At 11:47 a.m., the police made an ASD demand - The accused failed - The accused failed the Breathalyzer - The trial judge held that the accused was arbitrarily detained (Charter, s. 9) for the seven minute period between when the officer completed checking the accused's license and the time the formal ASD demand was made - The demand was not made "forthwith" - The accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel upon detention or arrest without delay was violated - However, the trial judge declined to exclude the evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the accused's appeal and ordered a new trial - The officer had an obligation to make the ASD demand at 11:29 a.m. (i.e., before the accused's licence information was relayed by the dispatcher) - The full 18-minute delay in making the ASD Demand infringed the accused's Charter rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) and could not be justified because an ASD was not available, or by the driver's licence inquiry, or any evidence confirming that the accused would have been unable to contact legal counsel during the subject interval - The trial judge erred by not excluding the conscriptive evidence (ASD test results and certificate of analysis) pursuant to s. 24(2) - Its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4605

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Due to lack of time or opportunity - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving - Demand for breath sample - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1379

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility where counsel denied - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench provided a synthesis of the law respecting the requirement that a police officer make an approved screening device demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code "forthwith" - See paragraphs 12 to 28.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gagnon (L.) (2006), 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 32 C.R.(5th) 1; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Burke, [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 205; 46 C.R.(4th) 195, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 29 C.R.(4th) 113, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. R.W., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 122; 137 N.R. 214; 54 O.A.C. 164; 13 C.R.(4th) 257, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 59 C.R.(3d) 108, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Chaisson (D.) (2006), 347 N.R. 282; 256 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 773 A.P.R. 181; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 2006 SCC 11, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Janzen (K.) (2005), 273 Sask.R. 66; 2005 SKQB 511, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Woods (J.C.), [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205; 336 N.R. 1; 195 Man.R.(2d) 131; 351 W.A.C. 131; 29 C.R.(6th) 240; 2005 SCC 42, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 7 C.R.(4th) 388, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. George (N.) (2004), 189 O.A.C. 161; 187 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 23 C.R.(6th) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dewald - see R. v. Pierman (M.B.).

R. v. Pierman (M.B.) (1996), 73 O.A.C. 287; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), affd. [1996] 1 S.C.R. 68; 192 N.R. 237; 89 O.A.C. 146, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Coté (1992), 54 O.A.C. 281; 70 C.C.C.(3d) 280; 11 C.R.(4th) 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Giesbrecht (M.W.) (2005), 267 Sask.R. 158; 2005 SKQB 314, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ritchie (N.W.), [2003] 10 W.W.R. 178; 236 Sask.R. 9; 2003 SKQB 246, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Koszman (S.M.) (2001), 206 Sask.R. 292; 2001 SKQB 201, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Billette (E.) (2001), 205 Sask.R. 79; 2001 SKQB 150, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Sundquist (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 273; 216 W.A.C. 273; 2000 SKCA 50, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Butchko (C.L.) (2003), 234 Sask.R. 115; 2003 SKPC 76, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Oduneye (S.O.) (1995), 169 A.R. 353; 97 W.A.C. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Brittain (Y.M.), [2000] 10 W.W.R. 663; 194 Sask.R. 26; 2000 SKQB 242, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Schaeffer (D.B.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 219; 342 W.A.C. 219; 28 C.R.(6th) 99; 2005 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 10 C.R.(6th) 205; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 33 C.R.(4th) 85, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 9 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 40].

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291; 9 C.R.R. 355; 14 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 41 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Silveira (A.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 297; 181 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 161; 38 C.R.(4th) 330, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232; 33 C.R.(4th) 49, refd to. [para. 45].

Counsel:

Dwayne Z. Braun, for the appellant;

Kimberley R. Humphries, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Klebuc, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on June 20, 2006.