R. v. Neufeld (T.), 2015 SKPC 4

• Judge: Labach, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKPC 4;(2015), 464 Sask.R. 244 (PC)

R. v. Neufeld (T.) (2015), 464 Sask.R. 244 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. JA.018

Her Majesty the Queen v. Terri Neufeld

(Information No. 24543648; 2015 SKPC 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Neufeld (T.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Labach, P.C.J.

January 13, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving and guilty of driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1

Right to counsel - General - Advice re - Understanding of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - General - Duty to notify accused of or explain right to counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators (incl. undercover officers) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit - She asserted that her right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter had been breached and that the evidence obtained should be excluded under s. 24(2) - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found no breach of s. 10(b) - The arresting officer fulfilled his implementational duties - Once the accused had changed her mind and wanted to call a lawyer, the officer gave her a reasonable opportunity to do that - He focussed his attention on trying to facilitate her speaking to counsel - The accused was not diligent in exercising her right to counsel - After she was put in a phone room and told that she could call whomever she wanted to get her lawyer's name and number, the accused told the officer three times that she did not want a lawyer - The officer then gave the accused a Prosper warning - The accused told him twice that she was waiving her right - The accused understood her right and was given every opportunity to exercise it - See paragraphs 20 to 30.

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - General - Waiver or abandonment of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.4

Right to counsel - General - Duty of accused to act diligently - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The accused was charged with impaired driving - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - The arresting officer had not noticed any erratic driving, but there was some fluctuation in the vehicle's speed and a few jerks - It was evident that the accused and her passenger were arguing - After stopping the accused, the officer noted very little in terms of impairment - The accused had glassy eyes and admitted to having two beer two hours earlier - She was not slurring her words - Her dexterity was fine - The officer did not feel that he had grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving - At best, he suspected that there was alcohol in her body and requested that she blow into a roadside screening device, which she did - The evidence did not establish that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol - See paragraphs 32 to 35.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Willier (S.J.), [2010] 2 S.C.R. 429; 406 N.R. 218; 490 A.R. 1; 497 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217 (C.A.), affd. (1994), 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 35].

Counsel:

Gary Parker, for the Crown;

Michael Owens, for the accused.

This case was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Labach, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 13, 2015.