R. v. Lamha (L.A.), (2011) 526 A.R. 111 (QB)

• Judge: Rosborough, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: October 11, 2011
• Citations: (2011), 526 A.R. 111 (QB);2011 ABPC 303

R. v. Lamha (L.A.) (2011), 526 A.R. 111 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. NO.028

Her Majesty The Queen v. Laurie Ann Lamha (080640170P1; 2011 ABPC 303)

Indexed As: R. v. Lamha (L.A.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Rosborough, P.C.J.

October 14, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was being treated for Hepatitis C. After taking her usual medication, the accused stopped at a pharmacy, purchased Oxycodone pills and ingested two of them. The accused then went to a medical clinic, complaining of fatigue and headache. She was given Demerol (another narcotic analgesic) and Gravol at a clinic. The accused then left the clinic, driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. She was charged with impaired driving. At issue was whether the accused had the requisite mens rea.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of impaired driving. She voluntarily ingested the pills with knowledge that they would adversely affect her ability to drive. The requisite mens rea was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Criminal Law - Topic 1361

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Intention - The accused was being treated for Hepatitis C - After taking her usual medication, the accused stopped at a pharmacy, filled out her prescription of Oxycodone and ingested two pills - She then drove to a medical clinic, complaining of fatigue and headache - The doctor gave her Demerol (another narcotic analgesic) and Gravol, and warned her not to drive - The accused told the doctor she was walking home from the clinic, admitting that she lied to him - The accused had previously obtained Demerol and Gravol from the same doctor - Each time, she had been required to sign a form warning her not to drive for six hours - The accused left the clinic in her vehicle, driving erratically - She was charged with impaired driving - At issue was whether the accused had the requisite mens rea - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of impaired driving - She voluntarily ingested the pills with knowledge that they would adversely affect her ability to drive - The Crown proved the requisite mens rea.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Pomeroy (C.G.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. B18 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 47].

R. v. King, [1962] S.C.R. 746, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Rushton, [1964] 1 C.C.C. 382 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Honish (1992), 120 A.R. 223; 8 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), affd. [1993] 1 S.C.R. 458; 149 N.R. 214; 135 A.R. 334; 33 W.A.C. 334, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Abel (A.D.) (1999), 232 A.R. 186; 195 W.A.C. 186 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51.

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 53].

Counsel:

D. Huot, for the Crown;

L. Goddard, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard on August 31 and October 11, 2011, at Red Deer, Alberta, before Rosborough, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on October 14, 2011.