R. v. Minion (J.), (2011) 379 Sask.R. 312 (PC)

• Judge: Henning, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: August 17, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2011), 379 Sask.R. 312 (PC);2011 SKPC 137

R. v. Minion (J.) (2011), 379 Sask.R. 312 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.052

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jeffrey Minion

(Information No. 38965386; 2011 SKPC 137)

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

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Henning, P.C.J.

August 17, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level over .08. The defence alleged a breach of the accused's s. 9 Charter rights.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found no breach of the accused's s. 9 Charter rights. The court found the accused guilty of operating a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level and dismissed the charge of impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - Shortly after 1:00 a.m., Cst. Driever came upon a motor vehicle stopped on the road - He was on routine patrol and was especially watchful for impaired drivers as there had been a Saskatchewan Roughrider game the evening before - He described the stop as a "traffic stop", noting that the vehicle was stationary with the passenger "slumped over" - Cst. Driever spoke with the accused driver - He asked what they were doing, and the accused replied that he was taking the passenger home as she was "pretty drunk" - Cst. Driever stated that the accused had slight slurring of speech and there was an odour of alcohol in the vehicle - He asked the accused if he had been drinking, to which he replied "four pints of beer" - Cst. Driever made a roadside screening test demand and a fail result was obtained - Cst. Driever arrested the accused and made a breath demand under s. 253(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code - Breath tests were taken - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the detention of the accused did not breach s. 9 of the Charter - The investigating officer was concerned primarily with Criminal Code alcohol-related driving offences, and made a traffic stop to facilitate investigation of a possible offence under the Criminal Code - However, under the Traffic Safety Act, a traffic stop was authorized under these circumstances for the purpose of determining the sobriety of the person driving, or in charge of, the vehicle - If the vehicle stop had been conducted for a purpose unrelated to sobriety of the driver, such as checking for illegal drugs, the Traffic Safety Act exception to arbitrary detention would not apply - However, in the case of sobriety of the driver and inquiry about alcohol consumption, the Act specifically authorized such investigation - Where an investigator had two statutes in mind in effecting a stop with respect to investigation of an alcohol and vehicle issue, and the investigations were identical, or closely related, the purpose outside the Traffic Safety Act would not make the traffic stop under that Act invalid - Even if the court had found that the detention was unlawful, it would have admitted the Certificate of Analyses into evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

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

Criminal Law - Topic 1379.2

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Admissibility where Charter right breached - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3086

Powers - Arrest and detention - Detention for investigative purposes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3105

Powers - Investigation - Impaired driving (incl. sobriety tests etc.) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3109

Powers - Investigation - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lundrigan (D.J.) (2007), 303 Sask.R. 277; 2007 SKQB 388, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Alexander (D.) (2009), 328 Sask.R. 241; 2009 SKQB 21, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Green, 1994 SKQB 129, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2009), 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Houben (K.) (2004), 246 Sask.R. 34; 2004 SKPC 26, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Houben (K.) (2006), 289 Sask.R. 118; 382 W.A.C. 118; 2006 SKCA 129, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Synkiw (N.) (2010), 367 Sask.R. 83; 2010 SKPC 152, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Doell (Q.) (2007), 293 Sask.R. 262; 397 W.A.C. 262; 2007 SKCA 61, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al. (2010), 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51; 2010 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 22].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 2].

Traffic Safety Act, S.S. 2004, c. T-18.1, sect. 148 [para. 13]; sect. 209.1 [para. 11].

Counsel:

Michael Morris, for the Crown;

Barry Nychuk, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Henning, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on August 17, 2011.