R. v. Knox (J.D.), (2001) 191 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Sherar, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 19, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (ProvCt)

R. v. Knox (J.D.) (2001), 191 N.S.R.(2d) 288 (ProvCt);

 596 A.P.R. 288

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. JA.041

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jessica Dale Knox

(Case No. 965266-268)

Indexed As: R. v. Knox (J.D.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Sherar, P.C.J.

January 19, 2001.

Summary:

Following a fatal accident, the accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while she was impaired there­by causing the death of another woman (count 1), or with causing the woman's death by criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle (count 2). She was also charged with criminal negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle thereby causing bodily harm to another person involved in the accident (count 3). The accused pleaded not guilty and gave notice that she wished to raise a s. 8 Charter argument regarding her right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure and a blood sample taken at the hospital. A voir dire was held.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 191 N.S.R.(2d) 277; 596 A.P.R. 277, dismissed the application, hold­ing that the results of a blood/alcohol analy­sis done at the hospital on a doctor's initia­tive while the accused was unconscious ought not to be excluded taking into con­sideration ss. 8 and 24 of the Charter.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court, in the decision reported below, acquitted the accused on counts 1 and 3. Count 2 was dismissed because at the conclusion of the trial, the Crown did not seek a conviction on that count.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - [See Evidence -Topic 7002 ].

Evidence - Topic 7002

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Acceptance, rejection and weight to be given to expert opinion - The accused's vehicle crossed the centre line and was involved in a fatal accident - Her blood/alcohol level approximately an hour after the accident was 216 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood - The accused was charged with alcohol related driving offences - A Crown expert testified extrapolating the accused's blood/alcohol level back to the time of the accident and claimed that the accused would have been impaired - The expert based her opinion on two assumptions, i.e., that no alcohol was ingested within one-half hour before the accident and none after the accident - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court acquitted the accused - The court did not give any weight to the Crown's opinion regarding the accused's extrapolated blood/alcohol level because the underlying assumptions relied on by the expert were not proven by the Crown - The remaining evidence was insufficient to prove the offences beyond a reasonable doubt - See paragraphs 1 to 60.

Evidence - Topic 7009

Opinion evidence - Expert evidence - Proof of assumptions - [See Evidence - Topic 7002 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Redmond (1990), 37 O.A.C. 133; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 273 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 36].

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. 37].

R. v. Laprise (1996), 113 C.C.C.(3d) 87 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. English (1982), 47 Alta. L.R.(2d) 372 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Clark (B.) (1995), 135 Sask.R. 103 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Nelson (1982), 16 Sask.R. 391 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Reutov (1992), 38 M.V.R.(2d) 189 (Alta. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. O'Hara, [1989] O.J. No. 2675, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Bangs, [1992] O.J. No. 3734, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Lacey (1992), 113 N.S.R.(2d) 348; 309 A.P.R. 348 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Snyder, [1997] N.S.J. No. 435 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused (1997), 209 N.R. 400; 99 O.A.C. 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Quiring (G.L.), [1998] B.C.T.C. Uned. J41 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. Dean (1992), 127 A.R. 376; 20 W.A.C. 376; 37 M.V.R.(2d) 238 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Livingstone (K.M.) (1992), 137 A.R. 179 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Ostrowski (1958), 122 C.C.C. 196; 29 C.R. 109 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 56].

Counsel:

Darrell H. Martin, for the prosecution;

Stanley W. MacDonald, for the defence.

This case was heard at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on January 19, 2001, before Sherar, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on the same date.