R. v. Lawson (P.H.), 2014 SKPC 191

• Judge: Wiegers, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 03, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2014 SKPC 191;(2014), 459 Sask.R. 169 (PC)

R. v. Lawson (P.H.) (2014), 459 Sask.R. 169 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. NO.022

Her Majesty the Queen v. Preston Howard Lawson

(Information No. 24298437; 2014 SKPC 191)

Indexed As: R. v. Lawson (P.H.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Wiegers, P.C.J.

November 3, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with an approved screening device demand, contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code. The accused argued that he did comply with the demand, or alternatively, that he had a reasonable excuse for his non-compliance.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Excuse for refusal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1386.3 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.3

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Refusal - Police stopped Lawson's vehicle and made an approved screening device (ASD) demand - Lawson made four unsuccessful attempts to provide a sample - Prior to his first attempt, Lawson stated "I won't lie to you, I am going to blow over so ... " - After the second, third and fourth attempts, Lawson suggested that they go to the police station so that he could provide a breathalyzer sample - The officer made a fifth ASD demand - Lawson suggested that the ASD was "wrecked" - He folded his arms, looked out the window, and stated that they should go to the police station to find out - The officer replied "Okay. Good enough." - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found Lawson guilty of failing or refusing to comply with an ASD demand - Lawson intentionally refused to provide a fifth sample - In addition, notwithstanding that the ASD mouthpiece was not subsequently tested, the court was satisfied that Lawson had feigned compliance with his previous attempts - The court rejected Lawson's argument that he had a reasonable excuse for his refusal because he believed that his offer to provide breathalyzer samples instead had been accepted - Such a belief was neither honestly held nor reasonable in the circumstances.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kitchemonia (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 225 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 1].

R. v. Angrignon (J.G.), [2002] Sask.R. Uned. 184; 2002 SKQB 477, refd to. [para. 32, footnote 1].

R. v. MacNeil, [1978] O.J. No. 653 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 1].

R. v. Lewko (G.L.) (2002), 227 Sask.R. 77; 287 W.A.C. 77; 2002 SKCA 121, refd to. [para. 33, footnote 2].

R. v. Adam (1988), 70 Sask.R. 307 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 4].

R. v. Melanson (1973), 6 N.B.R.(2d) 508 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 4].

R. v. Musselman (1987), 55 Sask.R. 233 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 4].

R. v. Houle (D.) (2013), 430 Sask.R. 25; 2013 SKPC 216, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Kot (J.G.) (2014), 443 Sask.R. 298; 2014 SKPC 63, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Olivier-Williams (J.), [2005] O.T.C. 617 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Nagy (C.T.) (2003), 336 A.R. 124; 2003 ABQB 690, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Bleta (E.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1235; 2012 ONSC 1235, refd to. [para. 34, footnote 6].

R. v. Page (1982), 41 A.R. 429; 1982 ABCA 230, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 8].

R. v. Lawson (A.), [2011] B.C.T.C. Uned. 876; 2011 BCSC 876, refd to. [para. 35, footnote 8].

R. v. Lumley, [1988] O.J. No. 2521 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 9].

R. v. Farkas, [2002] O.J. No. 4682 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 9].

R. v. Levesque, [1985] B.C.J. No. 1949 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 10].

R. v. D'Alfonso (G.J.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1051; 2012 BCSC 1051, refd to. [para. 38, footnote 10].

R. v. Gutierrez (R.), [2001] O.T.C. 687 (Sup.Ct.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 10].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 11].

R. v. McLachlan (B.) (2012), 399 Sask.R. 77; 552 W.A.C. 77; 2012 SKCA 74, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 11].

R. v. Bouvier (1984), 1 O.A.C. 302; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.), affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 485; 64 N.R. 321; 11 O.A.C. 185, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 11].

R. v. Stewart, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 748; 12 N.R. 201; 1 A.R. 455, refd to. [para. 40, footnote 11].

R. v. Frohwerk (1979), 5 Man.R.(2d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49, footnote 14].

R. v. Moldenhauer (1980), 8 Sask.R. 263 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 15].

R. v. Wall, [1974] 5 W.W.R. 634 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 17].

R. v. Richardson (M.J.) (1993), 62 O.A.C. 393; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 17].

R. v. Wilson (D.S.) (1996), 76 B.C.A.C. 223; 125 W.A.C. 223 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 17].

R. v. Weir (L.M.) (1993), 120 N.S.R.(2d) 256; 332 A.P.R. 256; 42 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 17].

R. v. Taylor (G.A.) (1993), 23 B.C.A.C. 201; 39 W.A.C. 201; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 240 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50, footnote 17].

R. v. Chrun, [1973] S.J. No. 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 18].

R. v. Downey (1981), 31 A.R. 575 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 18].

R. v. Chapman (1979), 5 Man.R.(2d) 262 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 18].

Counsel:

Jennifer Hiatt, for the Crown;

Aaron A. Fox, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Estevan, Saskatchewan, before Wiegers, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 3, 2014.