R. v. Jackson (D.R.), (1994) 152 A.R. 272 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Fradsham, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: March 29, 1994
• Citations: (1994), 152 A.R. 272 (ProvCt)

R. v. Jackson (D.R.) (1994), 152 A.R. 272 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen v. David R. Jackson

(No. 31484900P10101)

Indexed As: R. v. Jackson (D.R.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Fradsham, P.C.J.

March 29, 1994.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content. The accused gave breath samples. The police admitted lacking reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand. A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of the breath samples.

The Alberta Provincial Court ruled that the breath samples were admissible under the Criminal Code (R. v. Rilling), but were to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, where the taking of the samples without reasonable and probable grounds constituted an unreasonable seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Ac­cordingly, the court dismissed the charge against the accused.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reason­able search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - Police admit­tedly lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand - However, the accused, without consulting with counsel, gave breath samples - A pre-Charter Supreme Court of Canada case (R. v. Rilling) provided that once the accused provided a breath sample, the evidence was admissible even absent rea­sonable and probable grounds - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the taking of the breath samples constituted an unreasonable seizure contrary to s. 8 of the Charter - The court stated that although the evidence was admissible under the Criminal Code (i.e., Rilling still stands post-Charter), the evidence had to be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute - Absent such evidence, the court dismissed a charge of driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content.

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Breath tests - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer demand - Evidence and certificate evidence - Admissibility - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rilling (1975), 5 N.R. 327 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Dwernychuk (M.K.) (1992), 135 A.R. 31; 33 W.A.C. 31; 77 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1993), 151 N.R. 400; 141 A.R. 317; 46 W.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Ernewein v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1979), 30 N.R. 316 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Hauser and Alberta (Attorney Gen­eral) (1977), 7 A.R. 89 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. DeCoste (1984), 65 N.S.R.(2d) 61; 147 A.P.R. 61; 15 C.C.C.(3d) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Wills (1992), 52 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hiebert (B.A.) (1994), 152 A.R. 54 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Goldman, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 976; 30 N.R. 453, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Goodine (1989), 97 A.R. 102 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Dixon (P.W.) (1993), 144 A.R. 110 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Covell (S.L.) (1993), 138 A.R. 220 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 13 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 28 C.R.R. 122, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Elshaw, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 24; 128 N.R. 241; 3 B.C.A.C. 81; 7 W.A.C. 81; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 59 B.C.L.R.(2d) 143, refd to. [para. 38].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 8 [para. 16]; sect. 10(b) [para. 7]; sect. 24(2) [para. 29].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253(b) [para. 2]; sect. 254(3) [para. 1]; sect. 258(1)(g) [para. 16].

Motor Vehicle Administration Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-22, sect. 110 [para. 8].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Libman, Rick, The Admissibility of Breath Certificates -- Has Rilling Survived the Charter? (1989), 67 C.R.(3d) 372, p. 373 [para. 12].

Counsel:

J.F. Adolphe, for the Crown;

S.J. McNeil, for the accused.

This case was heard at Calgary, Alberta, before Fradsham, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the follow­ing judgment on March 29, 1994.