R. v. Lange (B.), (2015) 468 Sask.R. 156 (QB)
|Court:||Court of Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan|
|Case Date:||January 15, 2015|
|Citations:||(2015), 468 Sask.R. 156 (QB);2015 SKQB 15|
R. v. Lange (B.) (2015), 468 Sask.R. 156 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  Sask.R. TBEd. FE.029
Her Majesty the Queen (Crown) v. Barry Lange (appellant)
(2013 QBA No. 14; 2015 SKQB 15)
Indexed As: R. v. Lange (B.)
Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial Centre of Battleford
January 15, 2015.
The accused was found guilty of driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by determining that the breath samples were taken by a qualified technician as defined in s. 254(1) of the Criminal Code.
The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction.
Criminal Law - Topic 1374
Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - Lange was charged with driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit - Cst. Herron, the officer who took Lange's breath samples, testified during cross-examination that he was designated as a qualified technician by Randy Prokoloptus who was the National Breath Tech Coordinator from the Winnipeg Lab - The trial judge found that there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity respecting the Certificate of Qualified Technician - Lange was found guilty - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by determining that the breath samples were taken by a qualified technician as defined in s. 254(1) of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal - Cst. Herron did not testify that he was designated as a qualified technician by the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or their designates, as required by s. 254(1) of the Criminal Code and read in conjunction with s. 2 - Lange raised evidence through Cst. Herron's cross-examination which directly rebutted the presumption that Cst. Herron was a qualified technician - The trial judge's failure to address this evidence and consider it in his decision constituted an error in law.
R. v. Wilton (G.D.) (2009), 345 Sask.R. 81; 2009 SKQB 405, refd to. [para. 23].
R. v. Adams (1986), 51 Sask.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].
R. v. Armbruster (D.R.) (2010), 346 Sask.R. 197; 477 W.A.C. 197; 2010 SKCA 25, refd to. [para. 33].
R. v. Brooks (1984), 35 Sask.R. 163 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].
R. v. Burns (R.H.),  1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47].
D. Fan, for the Crown;
D. Smith, for the appellant.
This appeal was heard before Zuk, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following decision on January 15, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP