R. v. Oram (R.G.), (2015) 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (NLPC)

• Judge: Gorman, P.C.J.
• Court: Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court (Canada)
• Case Date: February 11, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Newfoundland and Labrador
• Citations: (2015), 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (NLPC);2015 NLPC 1313

R. v. Oram (R.G.) (2015), 364 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1 (NLPC);

    1136 A.P.R. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. MR.012

Her Majesty the Queen v. Raymond Gerald Oram

(2015 NLPC 1313A004827)

Indexed As: R. v. Oram (R.G.)

Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court

Gorman, P.C.J.

February 20, 2015.

Summary:

Oram was charged with having failed to comply with an approved screening device demand (Criminal Code, s. 254(5)). At the close of the Crown's case, Oram moved for a directed verdict. He submitted that no evidence was presented by the Crown that an "approved screening device" was utilized by the police.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court dismissed the application.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.3

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Refusal - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1386.4 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.4

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Evidence and proof (incl. whether device approved, calibration records, etc.) - The accused was charged with having failed to comply with an approved screening device demand (Criminal Code, s. 254(5)) - The Crown's evidence consisted of the evidence provided by two police officers, Cst. Cross and Cst. Lavoie - Both officers referred to having used an "approved screening device" - Cst. Cross described the screening device he used as a "Drager" model, but was not certain if that was an "approved screening device" - Cst. Lavoie referred to the screening device used as a "Drager Alcotest 7410 GLC" - At the close of the Crown's case, the accused moved for a directed verdict - He submitted that no evidence was presented by the Crown that an "approved screening device" was utilized by the police - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court dismissed the application - Proof that an approved screening device was utilized was not an element of an offence pursuant to ss. 254(2)(b) to 254(5) of the Criminal Code - Nonetheless, there was evidence that an "approved screening device" was used by Cst. Cross and Cst. Lavoie - "In considering a directed verdict motion I must refrain from weighing this evidence. Since there is some evidence on this issue, a directed verdict cannot issue." - See paragraphs 40 to 50.

Criminal Law - Topic 4440

Procedure - Verdicts - Discharges and dismissals - Directed verdicts - The Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court set out the test for a directed verdict, and summarized the applicable principles - See paragraphs 27 to 38.

Criminal Law - Topic 4560

Procedure - Trial - Motions - Motion for a directed verdict - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4440 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Kosa (1992), 42 M.V.R.(2d) 290 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Patrick (1996), 22 M.V.R.(3d) 113 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Dhillon (G.S.) (2006), 394 A.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Valere, 2013 ONCJ 594, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. MacNeil (J.), [2002] O.T.C. 760 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Weare, [2005] O.J. No. 2411 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Allard (R.J.) (2013), 578 A.R. 348 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Anthonypillai, [2007] O.J. No. 1254 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Lemieux (1990), 41 O.A.C. 326; 24 M.V.R.(2d) 157 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Young (T.J.) (2007), 224 O.A.C. 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 23, footnote 1].

R. v. Barros (R.), [2011] 3 S.C.R. 368; 421 N.R. 270; 513 A.R. 1; 530 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Richard (D.R.) et al. (2013), 299 Man.R.(2d) 1; 590 W.A.C. 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

United States of America v. Shephard, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 1067; 9 N.R. 215, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Monteleone, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 154; 78 N.R. 377; 23 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Stacey (R.M.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 357; 992 A.P.R. 357; 2012 NLCA 22, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Barrett (A.) (2012), 319 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 287; 992 A.P.R. 287 (N.L.C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Arcuri (G.), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 828; 274 N.R. 274; 150 O.A.C. 126; 157 C.C.C.(3d) 21, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Cavanagh (D.), [2014] O.A.C. Uned. 230 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Muir (D.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 751 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Charles (T.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 163 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Millington (K.), [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 143 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 38, footnote 2].

R. v. Moser (1992), 53 O.A.C. 145; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 165 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Goleski (G.A.) (2015), 467 N.R. 1; 365 B.C.A.C. 1; 627 W.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sheehan, [2003] N.J. No. 57 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Findlay (D.M.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. FE.044 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Danychuk (W.) (2004), 184 O.A.C. 131; 183 C.C.C.(3d) 337 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Degiorgio (T.) (2011), 279 O.A.C. 386; 2011 ONCA 527, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Gundy (T.) (2008), 235 O.A.C. 236; 231 C.C.C.(3d) 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 49].

Counsel:

A. Dwyer, for Her Majesty the Queen;

R. Ash, for Mr. Oram.

This application for a directed verdict was heard at Rocky Harbour, NL, on February 11, 2015, before Gorman, P.C.J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment and reasons, dated February 20, 2015.