R. v. Klassen (C.W.), (2004) 358 A.R. 362 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: May 18, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 358 A.R. 362 (PC);2004 ABPC 89

R. v. Klassen (C.W.) (2004), 358 A.R. 362 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JN.009

Her Majesty the Queen v. Curt Whalen Klassen

(030694103P101; 2004 ABPC 89)

Indexed As: R. v. Klassen (C.W.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

May 18, 2004.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood-alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. The accused alleged that the police infringed his rights under ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Alberta Provincial Court found that there had been a breach of the accused's ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights. However, the court declined to exclude the breath technician's certificate from evidence. The court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving, but found him guilty of driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - What constitutes unreasonable search and seizure - Cst. Fay stopped the accused driver and concluded that he had sufficient grounds to make a roadside screening device demand - Cst. Fox, who had assisted in stopping the vehicle, made the demand and administered the roadside screening test - The accused blew a fail - Cst. Fay then made a breath sample demand pursuant to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the seizure of the accused's breath by the approved screening device was an infringement of his s. 8 Charter rights where, although Cst. Fay had a reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body, the court was unable to determine whether Cst. Fox had such a suspicion - Without the fail result from the approved screening device, Cst. Fay also lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath sample demand under s. 254(3) of the Code and those tests also breached the accused's s. 8 rights - The detention of the accused in order to provide those breath samples also constituted an arbitrary detention, contrary to s. 9 of the Charter - However, the court declined to exclude the breath technician's certificate from evidence - Admission of the conscriptive evidence would not render the trial unfair - The breach was technical - The police acted in good faith - Exclusion of the evidence for such a minor violation would tend to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1217 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4615

Right to counsel - Instructing counsel - Right to privacy - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that "the police need not inform the accused of their right to consult their counsel in privacy; rather, they are required to provide privacy in order to fulfill their implementation duty of providing the detainees with a reasonable opportunity to exercise their s. 10(b) rights" - See paragraph 76.

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 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The Alberta Provincial Court found that the seizure of the accused's breath samples for an approved screening device test was an infringement of his s. 8 Charter rights - The court further held that once the fail result on the approved screening device test was excised from the arresting officer's remaining grounds for making a breath sample demand pursuant to s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, it was apparent that the officer lacked a subjective belief that he had the reasonable and probable grounds required for the s. 254(3) demand - The officer had asked the accused to undergo the approved screening device testing because he was uncertain whether the accused was impaired or not - The deciding factor was the fail result - Absent the fail result the officer was not subjectively satisfied that the accused was impaired - See paragraphs 63 to 65.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.5

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Who may administer test - Section 254(2) of the Criminal Code provided that "Where a peace officer reasonably suspects that a person who is operating a motor vehicle ... or who has the care or control of a motor vehicle ... has alcohol in the person's body, the peace officer may, by demand" require the person to provide a sample of breath for analysis by an approved screening device -The Alberta Provincial Court held that the jurisprudence and the principles of statutory interpretation supported the proposition that the peace officer who formed the reasonable suspicion that a person had alcohol in their body had to make the demand - When the words in s. 254(2) were given their grammatical and ordinary meaning, the repetition of the phrase "the peace officer" after the initial phrase "a peace officer" could only mean that "the peace officer" was the peace officer who formed the suspicion to make the demand -The peace officer who made the demand had to himself or herself reasonably suspect that the detainee had alcohol in his or her body - See paragraphs 21 to 48.

Cases Noticed:

Southam Inc. v. Hunter, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145; 55 N.R. 241; 55 A.R. 291, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Telford (1979), 50 C.C.C.(2d) 322 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Shea (1979), 49 C.C.C.(2d) 497 (P.E.I.S.C.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Dumbleton (1983), 20 M.V.R. 145 (Ont. Co. Ct.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Cullum (2001), 15 M.V.R.(4th) 267 (Ont. C.J.), consd. [para. 27].

R. v. Sahota, [2000] O.J. No. 3943 (C.J.), consd. [para. 27].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Campbell (1988), 29 O.A.C. 317; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 502 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Lackovic (1988), 29 O.A.C. 382; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 80 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Phillips (1992), 120 A.R. 146; 8 W.A.C. 146; 35 M.V.R.(2d) 167 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Kachmarchyk (G.G.) (1995), 165 A.R. 314; 89 W.A.C. 314; 12 M.V.R.(3d) 116 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 50].

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. 50].

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, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Trent (1979), 47 C.C.C.(2d) 321 (Ont. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Huddle (1989), 102 A.R. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Oduneye (S.O.) (1996), 169 A.R. 353; 97 W.A.C. 353 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Vivian (D.J.) (2000), 272 A.R. 280 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Blanchette (1978), 15 A.R. 249; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 205 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Huddleston (1984), 34 Sask.R. 68 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Zoravkovic (S.) (1998), 112 O.A.C. 119; 37 M.V.R.(3d) 93 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Suttie (S.), [2003] O.T.C. 458 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Sanche (W.) (2003), 334 A.R. 39; 34 M.V.R.(4th) 278; 2003 ABPC 4, refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. LePage (1987), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 186 A.P.R. 322; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Young (1987), 81 N.B.R.(2d) 233; 205 A.P.R. 233; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 295; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 452 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142; 63 O.R.(2d) 289; 61 C.R.(3d) 101 (C.A.), consd. [para. 70].

R. v. McKane (1987), 21 O.A.C. 73; 35 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 58 C.R.(3d) 130, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 83].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 85].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13, refd to. [para. 87].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 87].

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

R. v. Pierman (M.B.) (1994), 73 O.A.C. 287; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88].

R. v. Pierman (M.B.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 68; 192 N.R. 237; 89 O.A.C. 146; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 382, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Kokesch, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 3; 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207, refd to. [para. 98].

R. v. Ellis (S.R.) (2001), 314 A.R. 84; 14 M.V.R.(4th) 235; 2001 ABPC 83, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1996), 205 N.R. 158; 193 A.R. 79; 135 W.A.C. 79; 106 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 106].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 254(2) [para. 21].

Counsel:

M. Carminati, for the Crown;

E. Norheim, for the Defence.

This matter was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on May 18, 2004.