R. v. MacKenzie, (1983) 44 A.R. 40 (QB)

• Judge: Miller, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 11, 1983
• Citations: (1983), 44 A.R. 40 (QB)

R. v. MacKenzie (1983), 44 A.R. 40 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. MacKenzie

(No. 8213-A-008)

Indexed As: R. v. MacKenzie

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Fort McMurray

Miller, J.

April 11, 1983.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of refusal to comply with a breathalyzer demand and impaired driving. To convict of impaired driving the trial judge drew an inference against the accused from his failure to comply with the breathalyzer demand pursuant to 237(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The accused appealed on the ground that s. 237(3) contravenes the presumption of innocence in s. 11 (d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal and held that s. 237 (3) did not contravene s. 11(d).

Civil Rights - Topic 4947

Presumption of innocence - Evidence and proof - Inferences - Criminal cases - Inference of impaired driving from breathalyzer demand refusal - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 237(3) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that s. 237(3), which permitted an inference of impaired driving to be drawn from breathalyzer demand refusal, did not contravene the presumption of innocence guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - Inference of impaired driving from breathalyzer refusal - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 237(3) - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the nature of the inference which may be drawn under s. 237(3) and noted that the inference was discretionary - The court held further that the inference did not violate the presumption of innocence guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Carroll, 40 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 115 A.P.R. 147, consd. [para. 6].

Curr v. R. (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 181, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Appleby (1971), 3 C.C.C.(2d) 354, consd. [para. 9].

R. v. Graling (1978), 17 A.R. 347 (Alta. D.C.), appld. [para. 12].

R. v. Zink (1977), 7 A.R. 553; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 97, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Mazurek (1978), 13 A.R. 567; 41 C.C.C.(2d) 354, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Conlon (1977), 12 A.R. 267; 6 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Garneau (1982), 39 A.R. 91; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 90, consd. [para. 13].

R. v. Shelly (1982), 37 N.R. 320; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 293, consd. [para. 23].

R. v. Fredek (1979), 17 A.R. 613, consd. [para. 13].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 11(d) [para. 5].

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 234, sect. 237(3).

Authors and Works Noticed:

Cross on Evidence (4th Ed.), pp. 75 [paras. 17, 18]; 109 [para. 14].

McWilliams, Canadian Criminal Evidence, p. 391 [para. 16].

Counsel:

A. Germain, for the appellant;

W. Henkel, Q.C., and D. McNab, for the respondent.

This case was heard at Fort McMurray, Alberta, before MILLER, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following judgment on April 11, 1983: