R. v. Larocque (B.), (2014) 445 Sask.R. 159 (PC)

• Judge: Kalmakoff, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 14, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 445 Sask.R. 159 (PC);2014 SKPC 102

R. v. Larocque (B.) (2014), 445 Sask.R. 159 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.056

Her Majesty the Queen v. Brandon Larocque

(Information No. 90002364; 2014 SKPC 102)

Indexed As: R. v. Larocque (B.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kalmakoff, P.C.J.

May 14, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. He argued that the police did not have reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples, in violation of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there was no violation of the accused's Charter rights. The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and found guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A police officer concluded that Larocque had caused an accident when his vehicle crashed into the back of another vehicle that was stopped at an intersection - The officer noticed that Larocque's eyes were glossy and slightly red - Larocque stepped from side to side and back and forth as though he was having difficulty maintaining his balance - His breath smelled of alcohol - He admitted to consuming two whiskeys - Larocque was charged with impaired driving offences - He applied for exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter on the grounds that his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were violated because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there was no Charter violation, and even if there was, it would not have excluded the evidence - The evidence clearly established that the officer had a basis for investigating the issue of impaired driving which would have resulted in Larocque being detained for some period of time - There was no evidence that Larocque was mistreated or subjected to any demeaning or unwarranted investigative procedures - See paragraphs 33 to 40.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - A police officer concluded that Larocque had caused an accident when his vehicle crashed into the back of another vehicle that was stopped at an intersection - Larocque's eyes were glossy and slightly red - He stepped from side to side and back and forth as though he was having difficulty maintaining his balance - His breath smelled of alcohol - He admitted to consuming two whiskeys - Larocque was charged with impaired driving - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found him not guilty - The circumstances of the accident were just as consistent with momentary inattention as they were with impaired driving ability - The redness in Larocque's eyes and his lack of balance could have been a result of the fact that he had been in an accident where the air bag in his vehicle deployed - He did not have difficulty walking or exhibit any other deficits in coordination or motor function - He did not slur his speech - He responded appropriately to questions and did not appear confused or disoriented - The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Larocque's ability to drive was impaired - See paragraphs 41 to 44.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - A police officer concluded that Larocque had caused an accident when his vehicle crashed into the back of another vehicle that was stopped at an intersection - Larocque's eyes were glossy and slightly red - He stepped from side to side and back and forth as though he was having difficulty maintaining his balance - His breath smelled of alcohol - He admitted to consuming two whiskeys - Larocque was charged with impaired driving offences - He argued that his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were violated because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that there was no Charter violation - All of the officer's observations, considered cumulatively, supported a reasonable inference that Larocque's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol - The court was satisfied that the officer held the necessary subjective belief that Larocque's ability to drive was impaired when she arrested him - Her reasons for arresting him demonstrated that she had turned her mind not only to the question of whether Larocque had consumed alcohol, but also to the question of whether his ability to drive was impaired - See paragraphs 10 to 32.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Buhay (M.A.), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 631; 305 N.R. 158; 177 Man.R.(2d) 72; 304 W.A.C. 72; 2003 SCC 30, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Bush (G.G.) (2010), 268 O.A.C. 175; 2010 ONCA 554, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Shinkewski (L.A.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 11; 552 W.A.C. 11; 2012 SKCA 63, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Gunn (V.E.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 170; 552 W.A.C. 170; 2012 SKCA 80, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. MacDonald (D.E.) (1996), 146 Sask.R. 306 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Bonter (C.W.) (2013), 412 Sask.R. 209; 2013 SKQB 31, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Savage (M.R.) (2011), 371 Sask.R. 283; 518 W.A.C. 283; 2011 SKCA 65, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) et al. (2010), 477 A.R. 395; 483 W.A.C. 395; 2010 ABCA 146, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al., [2010] 1 S.C.R. 851; 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51; 2010 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Slippery (K.W.) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 183; 602 W.A.C. 183; 2014 SKCA 23, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Valentine (C.) (2014), 316 O.A.C. 302; 2014 ONCA 147, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Churko (J.R.) (2014), 433 Sask.R. 317; 602 W.A.C. 317; 2014 SKCA 41, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Shewchuk (C.) (2006), 274 Sask.R. 98; 2006 SKQB 33, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. LaFosse (J.G.M.) (2010), 291 N.S.R.(2d) 387; 922 A.P.R. 387; 2010 NSSC 240, folld. [para. 28].

R. v. Harrison (F.E.), [2012] B.C.A.C. Uned. 62; 2012 BCCA 339, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Sandhu (A.S.) (2011), 274 O.A.C. 278; 2011 ONCA 124, refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 18 O.R.(3d) 800, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 1; 546 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SKCA 30, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. A.L.E. (2009), 359 Sask.R. 59; 494 W.A.C. 59; 2009 SKCA 65, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Colton Fehr (student-at-law) and Kelly Onyskevitch, for the Crown;

Foster Weisgerber, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Kalmakoff, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 14, 2014.