R. v. Mandryk (W.J.),

• Judge: Tilleman, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Citation: 2013 ABQB 239,(2013), 560 A.R. 318 (QB)
• Date: 27 March 2013

R. v. Mandryk (W.J.) (2013), 560 A.R. 318 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. JN.026

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Wade Jonathan Mandryk (respondent)

(110460912S1; 2013 ABQB 239)

Indexed As: R. v. Mandryk (W.J.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Medicine Hat

Tilleman, J.

May 3, 2013.

Summary:

A police officer found the accused asleep or passed out in the reclined driver's seat of a running vehicle. The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit.

The Alberta Provincial Court acquitted the accused, finding that he did not intend to drive. The Crown appealed.

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

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4300].

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care and control or operating - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4300].

Criminal Law - Topic 4300

Procedure - Trial judge - Duties and functions of - Respecting credibility of witnesses (incl. accused) - Mandryk was driven to a bar by a friend - After consuming alcohol, he felt ill - He asked the bar staff to make arrangements for a ride home - He then went out to the friend's vehicle and started the engine for warmth - A police officer found Mandryk asleep or passed out in the reclined driver's seat of the vehicle - Mandryk told the officer that he had been sitting in the passenger seat, but had moved to the driver's seat after throwing up - Mandryk was charged with impaired driving offences - The trial judge, in short reasons, acquitted Mandryk, finding that he did not intend to drive and could not accidentally put the car in motion - The Crown appealed, arguing that, inter alia, (1) the trial judge erred in the application of R. v. D.W. (1991 SCC) regarding the credibility of witnesses; and (2) the trial judge's reasons precluded meaningful appellate review - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - Although the trial judge's reasons were short, they were clear - He had a straightforward trial with a simple credibility issue - He gave reasons that were commensurate with the evidence and issues he faced - His finding of fact relative to the verdict was not contradicted or incompatible with the evidence, nor was there a misapprehension of evidence -The D.W. analysis began by a judge asking himself whether he believed the accused on points essential to the verdict - In this case, the trial judge believed Mandryk - Therefore, he completed the first test under D.W. whether he said so or not - The verdict was supportable on any reasonable view of the evidence and was not reviewable on appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 4377

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding credibility of witnesses - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4300].

Criminal Law - Topic 4379

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions re character or credibility of accused - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4300].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4300].

Cases Noticed:

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. 9].

R. v. D.J.G. (2012), 539 A.R. 116; 561 W.A.C. 116; 2012 ABCA 336, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. W.D.S., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 521; 171 N.R. 360; 157 A.R. 321; 77 W.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Boudreault (D.), [2012] 3 S.C.R. 157; 436 N.R. 343; 2012 SCC 56, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. T.S. (2012), 290 O.A.C. 1; 2012 ONCA 289, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Plourde (D.B.J.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 24; 2013 ABCA 59, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Crundwell (M.D.), [2013] A.R. Uned. 1; 2013 ABCA 5, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. W.H., (2013), 442 N.R. 200; 335 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 1040 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 22, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Brar (G.S.) (2013), 337 B.C.A.C. 167; 576 W.A.C. 167; 2013 BCCA 193, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. R.E.M., [2008] 3 S.C.R. 3; 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146; 2008 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Fredrickson (R.A.), [2013] B.C.A.C. Uned. 26; 2013 BCCA 139, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Ogrodnick (C.) (2006), 393 A.R. 6; 2006 ABQB 91, revd. (2007), 409 A.R. 56; 402 W.A.C. 56; 2007 ABCA 161, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 1].

Counsel:

Kelly Payne, for the appellant;

Ian Baird, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on March 27, 2013, before Tilleman, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Medicine Hat, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on May 3, 2013.