R. v. Larlham (J.D.), (2012) 404 Sask.R. 262 (PC)

• Judge: Meekma, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: September 07, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 404 Sask.R. 262 (PC);2012 SKPC 148

R. v. Larlham (J.D.) (2012), 404 Sask.R. 262 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. SE.047

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jaret D. Larlham

(Information No. 24427012; 2012 SKPC 148)

Indexed As: R. v. Larlham (J.D.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Meekma, P.C.J.

September 7, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level over .08 ((Criminal Code, ss. 253(1)(a), 253(1)(b), 255(1)).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court acquitted the accused of both offences.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the law in Saskatchewan continued to be that no Charter challenge to admissibility was required for a defence to successfully argue against the availability of the presumption of identity - See paragraph 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level over .08 ((Criminal Code, ss. 253(1)(b) and 255(1)) - He argued that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable; therefore, the Crown could not rely on the presumption of identity in s. 258(1)(c) - He referred to the delay between 8:12 p.m. when the breath demand was read and 9:02 p.m. when the breath technician arrived at the police detachment to obtain the samples - Within that time frame, one 11 to 18 minute period remained unaccounted for - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court acquitted the accused - The time lapse here was significant enough to require an explanation - Only the arresting officer and the breath technician testified, so there was no explanation from the officers who relayed the request as to why no call was made for the technician between 8:12 p.m. or 8:14 p.m. when they arrived on scene and were asked to make the call, and 8:25 p.m. or 8:30 p.m. when the call was actually made - The cumulative effect of the delays was that the accused's breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable, resulting in the loss of the presumption in s. 258(1)(c), without which there was no evidence of the accused's blood-alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dolezsar (N.) (2012), 394 Sask.R. 60; 2012 SKQB 6, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Deruelle, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 663; 139 N.R. 56; 114 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 313 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hamm (1973), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 32 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Burwell (J.) (2012), 401 Sask.R. 100; 2012 SKPC 114, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Yates (B.M.) (2012), 402 Sask.R. 135; 2012 SKPC 104, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. McCoy (1990), 86 Sask.R. 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Vanderbruggen (M.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 379; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Berrecloth (C.), [2012] Sask.R. Uned. 68; 2012 SKQB 175, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Duchek (J.C.) (2012), 390 Sask.R. 170; 2012 SKPC 7, refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Paul Goldstein, for the Crown;

Brent Little, for the accused.

This case was heard by Meekma, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 7, 2012.