R. v. Mailey (P.O.), 2012 ABQB 138

• Judge: McCarthy, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: December 01, 2011
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 138;(2012), 537 A.R. 263 (QB)

R. v. Mailey (P.O.) (2012), 537 A.R. 263 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. MR.167

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Patrick Owen Mailey (appellant)

(081389116S2; 2012 ABQB 138)

Indexed As: R. v. Mailey (P.O.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Calgary

McCarthy, J.

March 21, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at [2011] A.R. Uned. 65, convicted the accused. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the interpretation and the application of the "as soon as practicable" requirement in s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 25 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand for - The accused appealed his conviction of driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The Crown relied on the presumption found in s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code to prove the alcohol concentration in the blood of the accused at the time of the commission of the alleged offence - The accused argued that the Crown could not rely on this presumption because the breath samples had not been taken as soon as practicable as required by s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Code - A period of 37 minutes elapsed from the time the accused was stopped at the roadside by the arresting officer to the time that his first breath sample was taken - Within that 37 minute time frame, a 25 minute delay occurred, for which no explanation was provided, and which the accused claimed was unreasonable - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The trial judge reviewed and applied the proper legal test to the meaning of the phrase "as soon as practicable" - The trial judge then made a finding of fact, which the court accepted, that there was a total time period of 37 minutes from when the accused was stopped to when the breath samples were taken, 25 minutes of which were unexplained - No evidence was adduced to show that the arresting officer acted unreasonably or gave unreasonable priority to any other task, which also supported the finding that the samples were taken "as soon as practicable" - The trial judge held, in consideration of all the circumstances, that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable and subsequently found the accused guilty - These findings raised no prima facie concern as to the reasonableness of the delay, and there was no reasonable doubt about whether the samples were taken "as soon as practicable" - The trial judge did not err in concluding that the delays did not result in breach of the statutory prescriptions of the Code; as such, the Crown was entitled to rely on the presumption of identity contained in s. 258(1)(c)(ii) - See paragraphs 69 to 103.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Gagnon (L.), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 621; 347 N.R. 355; 2006 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 21].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Walmsley (D.J.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. E55; [2009] B.C.W.L.D. 3279; 2008 BCSC 1625, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Plonka (A.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. 548; 2008 BCSC 881, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Torsney (2009), 81 M.V.R.(5th) 212 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Littler (S.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. H80; 72 M.V.R.(5th) 70 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Vanderbruggen (M.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 379; 29 M.V.R.(5th) 260; 206 C.C.C.(3d) 489 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Letford (J.) (2000), 139 O.A.C. 387; 150 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 51 O.R.(3d) 737 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Buffalo (M.D.) (2010), 480 A.R. 284; 2010 ABQB 325, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Burton (1988), 89 A.R. 60 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Davidson (W.K.), [2005] O.T.C. 716; 23 M.V.R.(5th) 77; 67 W.C.B.(2d) 645 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Bouchey (B.G.) (1998), 86 O.T.C. 137; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 125 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Willette (H.T.), [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 1055; 11 M.V.R.(6th) 273; 2011 ONSC 1055, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Bacchus (2011), 98 W.C.B.(2d) 135; 2011 ONCJ 448, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Altseimer (1982), 1 C.C.C.(3d) 7; 38 O.R.(2d) 783 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Van Der Veen (1988), 89 A.R. 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Mudry (1979), 19 A.R. 379; 5 M.V.R. 23 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Coverly (1979), 21 A.R. 233; 50 C.C.C.(2d) 518 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 450; 10 M.V.R. 187 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. C.A.J. (2004), 370 A.R. 76; 2004 ABQB 838, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Husain (S.) (2010), 503 A.R. 125; 2010 ABQB 708, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Jonasson (H.M.), [1997] A.R. Uned. 161; 35 W.C.B.(2d) 60 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 60].

R. v. Brandt, [1996] A.J. No. 1417 (Prov. Ct.), dist. [para. 60].

R. v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 22 A.R. 349 (T.D.), dist. [para. 60].

R. v. Cambrin, [1983] 2 W.W.R. 250; 18 M.V.R. 160 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. MacDonald (J.S.) (2006), 411 A.R. 342 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Mario (M.J.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 812; 2010 ABPC 305, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. McAllister (D.J.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 722; 2009 ABPC 320, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Budgell (T.L.) (2007), 424 A.R. 313; 2007 ABPC 138, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Turcotte (A.J.) (2008), 462 A.R. 396; 2008 ABPC 16, refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Goss (M.J.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 126 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Keen (C.S.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 411 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 74].

R. v. Salchenberger (1990), 108 A.R. 255; 10 W.C.B.(2d) 47 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Mide (E.B.) (1998), 233 A.R. 84; 1998 ABPC 123, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Miller (2010), 4 M.V.R.(6th) 208; 2010 ONCJ 468, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Price (D.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 1898; 94 M.V.R.(5th) 23; 2010 ONSC 1898, refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Khan (O.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 318; 65 M.V.R.(5th) 5; 76 W.C.B.(2d) 420 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 96].

R. v. Chojnacki, 2010 ONCJ 30, refd to. [para. 96].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1)(c)(ii) [para. 38].

Counsel:

Michael Oykhman, for the appellant;

Matthew Dalidowicz, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on December 1, 2011, by McCarthy, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Calgary, who delivered the following reasons for judgment on March 21, 2012.