R. v. Paquette (R.H.),

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2010 ABQB 395
• Citation: 2010 ABQB 395,(2010), 494 A.R. 363 (QB)
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Date: 11 June 2010

R. v. Paquette (R.H.) (2010), 494 A.R. 363 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2010] A.R. TBEd. JN.149

La Reine (intimée) v. Raymond Henri Paquette (appelant)

(061579041S1; 2010 ABQB 395)

Indexed As: R. v. Paquette (R.H.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

June 16, 2010.

Summary:

The accused was charged with refusal to comply with a breathalyzer demand. The accused raised a constitutional question. He argued that the arresting police officer had violated his right to be advised of his right to counsel. A voir dire took place.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a judgment forming Appendix A below, rejected the accused's argument. The court found the accused guilty. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal. The court ordered a new trial before a new judge. The trial judge had failed to give proper reasons respecting the constitutional question.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - General - Right to be advised of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the scope of the right to be advised of the right to counsel - See paragraphs 29 to 31.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions (incl. notes) - The accused, a francophone, was charged with refusal to comply with a breathalyzer demand - The accused raised a constitutional question - He argued that the arresting police officer, an anglophone, had violated his right to be advised of his right to counsel - The trial judge rejected the accused's argument and found him guilty - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench quashed the decision and ordered a new trial before a different judge - The trial judge had failed to give proper reasons in that he did not address the following evidentiary difficulties respecting the accused's understanding of his right to consult free counsel without delay: (1) the accused's "strong" French accent when speaking English; (2) the accused's arrest at midnight on a Friday night, after normal business hours; (3) the arresting officer belonged to the RCMP, a bilingual organization; (4) the accused had admitted consuming alcohol; (5) once at the police station, the accused was confused when he was asked to empty his pockets; (6) the accused had only a "weak education"; and (7) the arresting officer did not use the word "immediately" when he asked the accused whether he wanted to consult counsel - See paragraphs 32 to 41.

Cases Noticed:

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Burke (J.) (No. 3), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 474; 194 N.R. 247; 139 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 147; 433 A.P.R. 147, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ferguson (M.E.) (2006), 397 A.R. 1; 384 W.A.C. 1; 2006 ABCA 261, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Ngo (D.T.) (2003), 327 A.R. 320; 296 W.A.C. 320 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

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, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Lee (D.), [2009] A.R. Uned. 410 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Turcotte (A.J.) (2008), 462 A.R. 396; 2008 ABPC 16, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Reid - see R. v. Phillips.

R. v. Phillips (1986), 69 A.R. 54; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 60 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Devries (K.) (2009), 252 O.A.C. 34; 2009 ONCA 477, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Galbraith (J.), [2005] O.T.C. 210 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Buyco (O.L.) (2010), 489 A.R. 1; 2010 ABPC 8; 2010 ABPC 8, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Besharah (S.S.) (2010), 343 Sask.R. 202; 472 W.A.C. 202; 2010 SKCA 2, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Jones, [2004] A.W.L.D. 270, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Morin (K.M.), [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. C.L.Y., [2008] 1 S.C.R. 5; 370 N.R. 284; 225 Man.R.(2d) 146; 419 W.A.C. 146, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 97 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Beaudry (A.), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 190; 356 N.R. 323; 2007 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 2000 ABCA 301, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Mara (P.) et al., [1997] 2 S.C.R. 630; 213 N.R. 41; 101 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Clark (D.M.), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 6; 329 N.R. 10; 208 B.C.A.C. 6; 344 W.A.C. 6; 2005 SCC 2, refd to. [para. 6].

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. 7].

R. v. Dubois, [1990] J.Q. no. 75, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Vanstaceghem (1987), 21 O.A.C. 210 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Kwitkowski, 2009 QCCQ 1221, refd to. [para. 7].

Counsel:

R.S. (Ravi) Prithipaul (Gunn Law Group), for the accused;

Frédéric Bénard (Ministère public, St. Paul), for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on June 11, 2010, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on June 16, 2010.