R. v. Nagy (C.T.), (2003) 336 A.R. 124 (QB)

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 31, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 336 A.R. 124 (QB);2003 ABQB 690

R. v. Nagy (C.T.) (2003), 336 A.R. 124 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. AU.073

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Charles Thomas Nagy (appellant)

(0305-27691 S1; 2003 ABQB 690)

Indexed As: R. v. Nagy (C.T.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Watson, J.

August 5, 2003.

Summary:

The accused appealed from his conviction for refusing to comply with a demand for a screening test made by a peace officer under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

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

Criminal Law - Topic 1386

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Excuse for refusal - The accused appealed from his conviction for refusing to comply with a screening test demand - The accused argued that no unequivocal refusal had been proven - He contended that because the peace officer had not been sufficiently clear until later in the process, and was asked for explanations more than once, the officer should have taken the accused to have been in a state of doubt and offered another opportunity to comply with the demand after the last explanatory discussion - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the ground of appeal - The choice as to whether to provide samples was plainly before the accused and he knew his choice was serious - His assertion of a right to legal advice from the officer did not constitute a reasonable excuse for noncompliance with the demand - Errors of law on the accused's part were not an excuse - If there was a later change of mind by the accused, it was not communicated to the officer and it did not convert the case into one of reasonable excuse or something other than express refusal - See paragraphs 28 to 39.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The accused appealed from his conviction for refusing to comply with a screening test demand - The accused argued that the demand was unlawful as being outside the authority of the Criminal Code due to inadequate information from the officer to the accused - The accused claimed that the officer had a legal duty to give the accused sufficient information as to the purposes and effects of the screening test in order to make a decision as to whether or not to comply with the demand - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the ground of appeal - Considering what was said to the accused by the officer, the court stated that "it strains credulity to contend, in modern society, that such a combination of inquiries in such a context would be insufficient to convey to the motorist that the officer was gathering evidence related to whether alcohol was affecting the motorist's driving capacity" - See paragraphs 40 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 268, refd to. [para. 8, footnote 1].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 10, footnote 2].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1995), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109; 9 M.V.R.(3d) 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10, footnote 3].

R. v. Wilson, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 594; 51 N.R. 321; 26 Man.R.(2d) 194; [1984] 1 W.W.R. 481; 37 C.R.(3d) 97; 4 D.L.R.(4th) 577, refd to. [para. 14, footnote 5].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 12 O.R.(3d) 182; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 14 C.R.R.(2d) 338; 20 C.R.(4th) 1; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 6].

Brown et al. v. Durham Regional Police Force (1998), 116 O.A.C. 126; 131 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 21 C.R.(5th) 1 (C.A.), leave to appeal granted (1999), 252 N.R. 198; 133 O.A.C. 200 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 14, footnote 7].

R. v. Dhaliwal (1980), 53 C.C.C.(2d) 158 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 8].

R. v. Park, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 64; 37 N.R. 501; 21 C.R.(3d) 182 (Eng.); 26 C.R.(3d) 164 (Fr.); 59 C.C.C.(2d) 385; 122 D.L.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 8].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 160 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 207 D.L.R.(4th) 18; 47 C.R.(5th) 348; [2002] 2 W.W.R. 1, refd to. [para. 17, footnote 8].

R. v. Eliuk (L.E.) (2002), 299 A.R. 364; 266 W.A.C. 364 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17, footnote 9].

R. v. Ellerman (B.H.), [2000] 6 W.W.R. 704; 255 A.R. 149; 220 W.A.C. 149; 50 M.V.R.(3d) 290; 79 Alta. L.R.(3d) 205 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 11].

R. v. Orbanski (C.) (2003), 173 Man.R.(2d) 132; 293 W.A.C. 132; 173 C.C.C.(3d) 203 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 12].

R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2003), 177 Man.R.(2d) 13; 304 W.A.C. 13 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18, footnote 13].

R. v. Buffalo (B.J.), [2003] A.W.L.D. 154; 333 A.R. 178; 2003 CarswellAlta 83; 34 M.V.R.(4th) 230 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28, footnote 14].

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; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298; 210 D.L.R.(4th) 608; 50 C.R.(5th) 68, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 15].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 30, footnote 16].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181; 37 C.R.N.S. 1; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 18; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 731, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 17].

R. v. Seymour (J.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 252; 197 N.R. 81; 76 B.C.A.C. 1; 125 W.A.C. 1; 49 C.R.(4th) 190; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 520, refd to. [para. 31, footnote 18].

R. v. Cunningham (1989), 97 A.R. 81; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 521; 16 M.V.R.(2d) 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 19].

R. v. Sagh (1981), 32 A.R. 34; 62 C.C.C.(2d) 299 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 20].

R. v. Domik (1979), 2 M.V.R. 301 (Ont. H.C.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 21].

R. v. Page (1982), 41 A.R. 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32, footnote 22].

R. v. Dawson (P.J.) (1996), 140 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 176; 438 A.P.R. 176 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 23].

R. v. Lewko (G.L.), [2003] 2 W.W.R. 197; 227 Sask.R. 77; 287 W.A.C. 77; 169 C.C.C.(3d) 359; 7 C.R.(6th) 71; 31 M.V.R.(4th) 1; 2002 CarswellSask 665 (C.A.), reving. (2002), 214 Sask.R. 274 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 24].

R. v. Carmichael (E.H.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 25].

R. v. Carmichael (E.H.), [2001] A.R. Uned. 292 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 25].

R. v. Sheehan (D.B.J.), [2003] N.J. No. 57 (Nfld. Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 33, footnote 26].

R. v. Cochrane (1988), 96 A.R. 308 (C.A.), affing. (1988), 96 A.R. 308 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 27].

R. v. Hurdman (R.D.) (2003), 340 A.R. 239 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 37, footnote 28].

R. v. Top (1989), 95 A.R. 195; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 493 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39, footnote 2].

R. v. Cardinal (J.E.), [1993] A.J. No. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 30].

R. v. Clark (K.A.), [1992] A.J. No. 656 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45, footnote 31].

R. v. Crawford (C.) - see R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.).

R. v. Creighton (D.J.) and Crawford (C.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 858; 179 N.R. 161; 81 O.A.C. 359; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 37 C.R.(4th) 197, refd to. [para. 47, footnote 32].

R. v. Carty (N.A.), [1998] A.R. Uned. 148 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 50, footnote 33].

Terry v. Ohio (1968), 392 U.S. 1 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 34].

Horton v. California (1990), 496 U.S. 128 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 34].

Whren (M.A.) et al. v. United States of America (1996), 517 U.S. 806 (U.S.S.C.), refd to. [para. 51, footnote 36].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 38 C.R.R. 37, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 37].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 44 C.R.R.(2d) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 634; 7 C.R.(5th) 101, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 38].

R. v. Waterfield, [1964] 1 Q.B. 164; [1963] 3 W.L.R. 946; 48 Cr. App. Rep. 42; [1963] 3 All E.R. 659, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 39].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1; 20 D.L.R.(4th) 321, refd to. [para. 55, footnote 40].

R. v. Asante-Mensah (D.) (2003), 306 N.R. 289; 175 O.A.C. 317 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 41].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Quigley, Tim, A commentary: R. v. Lewko (2003), 7 C.R.(6th) 71, generally [para. 33, footnote 24].

Counsel:

Theodore H. Kantor, for the appellant;

Tania Sarkar, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on July 31, 2003, before Watson, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on August 5, 2003.