R. v. Meier (R.J.), (2003) 349 A.R. 181 (PC)

• Judge: Norheim, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 04, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 349 A.R. 181 (PC);2003 ABPC 219

R. v. Meier (R.J.) (2003), 349 A.R. 181 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. JA.072

Her Majesty the Queen v. Rory Jason Meier

(030119671P1; 2003 ABPC 219)

Indexed As: R. v. Meier (R.J.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Norheim, P.C.J.

December 23, 2003.

Summary:

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

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty of the first charge and dismissed the impaired driving charge.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - After giving breath samples, the accused was held in the cells until morning (five to six hours more than he would have been held if he had been released as soon as the officer had completed his investigation) - The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level and impaired driving - The accused argued that the officer's failure to release him immediately upon conclusion of the investigation should result in a judicial stay being entered - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the officer did not properly address his mind to the release provisions of the Criminal Code when he decided to hold the accused until morning - However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, holding that it was bound to follow the decision in R. v. Cutforth (Alta. C.A.) - This was also not an appropriate case to enter a judicial stay - The court stated that if it was required to grant a remedy, a reduction in the usual fine pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter would be a more proportionate response to the breach - See paragraphs 13 to 21.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8373

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Variation of sentence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8374

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Stay of proceedings - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes -The accused driver collided with a parked car - Witnesses saw him back away and then stop and exit his truck - A police officer arrived and saw the accused beside his truck beating his fists on the hood - The accused acknowledged to the officer that he had wrecked the truck - The accused submitted to a roadside screening test and a breathalyzer - The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level and impaired driving - The accused argued that since the officer did not see him driving, the Crown could not use the roadside screening device to establish reasonable grounds for the breathalyzer demand - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that on the facts it found the accused in care or control of the vehicle - If it was wrong in that determination then it held that this was not an appropriate case for refusing to admit the certificate of analysis into evidence - The officer was acting in good faith and the breach was of a technical nature - Admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 22 to 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1368 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Pringle (J.D.) (2003), 324 A.R. 352 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Cutforth (1987), 81 A.R. 213; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 253 (C.A.), folld. [para. 13].

R. v. Simpson (D.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 449; 178 N.R. 145; 127 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 171; 396 A.P.R. 171; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 96, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Wilson (M.D.) (2003), 342 A.R. 96 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 16].

R. v. Tugnam, [2002] B.C.J. No. 2556, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Dewald - see R. v. Pierman (M.B.).

R. v. Pierman (M.B.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 68; 192 N.R. 237; 89 O.A.C. 146; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 382, affing. (1996), 73 O.A.C. 287; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (C.A.), consd. [para. 24].

R. v. Fraser (M.L.) (2002), 310 A.R. 228 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Phillips (D.J.) (1992), 120 A.R. 146; 8 W.A.C. 146 (C.A.), consd. [para. 31].

R. v. Drapeau (1985), 70 N.S.R.(2d) 187; 166 A.P.R. 187; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 376 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Lackovic (1988), 29 O.A.C. 382; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 80 (C.A.), consd. [para. 35].

Counsel:

R.E. Marr, for the Crown;

R.K. Haryett, for the accused.

This matter was heard on May 20 and November 4, 2003, before Norheim, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on December 23, 2003.