R. v. Lange (B.), (2015) 468 Sask.R. 156 (QB)

• Judge: Zuk, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 15, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• 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: [2015] 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

Zuk, J.

January 15, 2015.

Summary:

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.

Cases Noticed:

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.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 47].

Counsel:

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.