R. v. Lachapelle (S.W.), 2014 SKCA 67

• Judge: Ryan-Froslie, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: June 11, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKCA 67;(2014), 438 Sask.R. 281 (CA)

R. v. Lachapelle (S.W.) (2014), 438 Sask.R. 281 (CA);

    608 W.A.C. 281

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.048

Scott Wybert Lachapelle (applicant/appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent/respondent)

(CACR2435; 2014 SKCA 67)

Indexed As: R. v. Lachapelle (S.W.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Ryan-Froslie, J.A.

June 18, 2014.

Summary:

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court convicted the accused for driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. He appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.046, dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed and applied under ss. 261 of the Criminal Code and 143 of the Traffic Safety Act for an order staying the revocation of his driving privileges pending the appeal.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Ryan-Froslie, J.A., allowed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 5799.2

Punishments (sentence) - Prohibition orders - Stay of - [See both Motor Vehicles - Topic 7232 ].

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7232

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Licence - Suspension of - Stay of suspension - The accused was convicted of driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit - He appealed and applied under ss. 261 of the Criminal Code and 143 of the Traffic Safety Act for an order staying the revocation of his driving privileges pending the appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Ryan-Froslie, J.A., discussed the factors relevant to the exercise of the appellate's court's discretion under these sections - They would vary depending on the circumstances of the accused and of the offence, but a determination that the appeal was not frivolous and that lifting the prohibition was in the public interest was necessary - The public interest engaged a balancing of the principles of enforceability and reviewability as well as concerns relating to public safety - It also included taking into account an applicant's personal circumstances - The onus of establishing that the discretion should be exercised in the applicant's favour rested with the applicant on a balance of probabilities - See paragraphs 9 to 15.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7232

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Licence - Suspension of - Stay of suspension - The accused was convicted of driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit - He appealed and applied under ss. 261 of the Criminal Code and 143 of the Traffic Safety Act for an order staying the revocation of his driving privileges pending the appeal - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, per Ryan-Froslie, J.A., allowed the application - The appeal was not frivolous - There were arguable issues - The accused was 39 years old, had his own business and needed a licence to conduct that business - While he had a criminal record, most of it was dated (pre-1996) - His last conviction was in 2000 - There was no significant concern regarding public safety - A prohibition order was part of the sentence and was usually of short duration - Unless the driving prohibition was stayed, the sentence might be served before the appeal was heard - See paragraphs 16 to 20.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Restau (E.J.) (2008), 314 Sask.R. 7; 435 W.A.C. 7; 2008 SKCA 111, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Cole (W.) (1994), 49 B.C.A.C. 318; 80 W.A.C. 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Lockerby (B.) (1999), 175 N.S.R.(2d) 329; 534 A.P.R. 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Ouellette (T.W.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 10; 11 M.V.R.(5th) 10; 2005 ABCA 57, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. MacCulloch (P.B.) (2010), 289 N.S.R.(2d) 341; 916 A.P.R. 341; 2010 NSCA 31, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Baker, [1994] B.C.J. No. 2323 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Farinacci (L.W.) et al. (1993), 67 O.A.C. 197; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. L.S.R. (2008), 311 Sask.R. 142; 428 W.A.C. 142; 2008 SKCA 77, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Switucka (T.Z.) (2009), 337 Sask.R. 218; 464 W.A.C. 218; 2009 SKCA 115, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Toy (K.O.) (2009), 331 Sask.R. 1; 460 W.A.C. 1; 2009 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Galloway (R.) (2004), 249 Sask.R. 121; 325 W.A.C. 121; 184 C.C.C.(3d) 355; 2004 SKCA 53, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Agecoutay (L.H.) et al. (2008), 310 Sask.R. 224; 423 W.A.C. 224; 2008 SKCA 68, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Leroux (P.M.) (2014), 438 Sask.R. 162; 608 W.A.C. 162; 2014 SKCA 60, refd to. [para. 14].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 261 [para. 9].

Traffic Safety Act, S.S. 2004, c. T-18.1, sect. 143 [para. 9].

Counsel:

Ronald P. Piché, for the applicant/appellant;

W. Dean Sinclair, for the respondent.

This application was heard on June 11, 2014, by Ryan-Froslie, J.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on June 18, 2014.