R. v. Lafrance (M.E.), (2015) 468 Sask.R. 76 (PC)

• Judge: Tomkins, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 27, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 468 Sask.R. 76 (PC);2015 SKPC 13

R. v. Lafrance (M.E.) (2015), 468 Sask.R. 76 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.019

Her Majesty the Queen v. Matthew Edmond Lafrance

(Information No. 90004398; 2015 SKPC 13)

Indexed As: R. v. Lafrance (M.E.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Tomkins, P.C.J.

January 27, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. He argued that his ss. 9, 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated and applied for the exclusion of evidence pursuant to s. 24(2).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the accused's ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were violated. The certificate of analysis was excluded on the basis of the s. 10(b) violation.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - A police officer stopped Lafrance's vehicle and asked him to step out of the vehicle after making the following observations: (a) Lafrance's manner of driving, including speeding and taking a corner quickly; (b) the delay in stopping his vehicle after the officer activated his emergency equipment; (c) he drove onto the sidewalk when he turned; (d) he put his head and torso out the window of the vehicle as the officer approached; (e) rapid speech; (f) glossy eyes; and (g) Lafrance said he was going to a party - Lafrance was subsequently charged with impaired driving offences - He argued that his ss. 9 and 10(a) Charter rights were violated - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the detention was not arbitrary - The officer's suspicion that Lafrance might be impaired by alcohol or drugs was honestly held subjectively and supported objectively - There was a s. 10(a) violation, as the officer did not advise Lafrance that he was being detained for the purposes of sobriety tests or a drug evaluation - However, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) - While the breach was serious, its impact on Lafrance's Charter-protected rights was minimal - The detention was of short duration and the officer did not ask for or obtain any admissions or other compromising information during or as a consequence of the detention - Although the officer was able to smell alcohol on Lafrance's breath, this might have been observed notwithstanding the breach - The nature of the breach did not outweigh society's interest in adjudication of the case on its merits - See paragraphs 4 to 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4602

Right to counsel - General - Denial of - Evidence taken inadmissible - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - Lafrance was charged with impaired driving offences on a Saturday night - He asked to call three different lawyers - Police dialled the office numbers for the first two lawyers but there was no answer - A live operator was reached for the third lawyer and Lafrance was placed on hold - After several minutes, an officer took the phone from Lafrance and hung it up because he believed that the call had been disconnected - The officer then dialled Legal Aid and instructed Lafrance to pick up the phone - Lafrance spoke to a Legal Aid lawyer - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that Lafrance's s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated - Given the time of night, it was expected that most lawyers' offices would be closed, and the police did not take any steps to obtain meaningful contact information for Lafrance's lawyers of choice - Lafrance was pushed to talk to Legal Aid - Once the police took responsibility for implementing an accused's counsel rights, they had to take the same steps that a reasonably diligent accused person would be expected to take - The certificate of analysis had to be excluded under s. 24(2) as a result of this breach - The breach was careless at best and demonstrated either an ignorance of Charter standards or little effort to meet them - Society had an interest in ensuring that Charter rights had real meaning and that they could not be abridged by reason of ignorance or convenience - See paragraphs 39 to 78.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.6

Right to counsel - General - Right to counsel of choice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 and Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1379

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility where counsel denied - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Mann (P.H.) (2004), 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 24, footnote 1].

R. v. Trueman (D.) (2008), 325 Sask.R. 252; 2008 SKQB 335, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 2].

R. v. Brouillette (E.) (2009), 351 Sask.R. 295; 2009 SKQB 422, refd to. [para. 56, footnote 3].

Counsel:

Colton Fehr, for the Crown;

James Korpan, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Tomkins, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 2015.