R. v. Paulin, (1981) 37 N.B.R.(2d) 256 (PC)

• Judge: Strange, J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: November 24, 1981
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1981), 37 N.B.R.(2d) 256 (PC)

R. v. Paulin (1981), 37 N.B.R.(2d) 256 (PC);

    37 R.N.-B.(2e) 256; 97 A.P.R. 256

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

R. v. Paulin

Indexed As: R. v. Paulin

Répertorié: R. v. Paulin

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Strange, J.

November 24, 1981.

Summary:

Résumé:

An accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 235 of the Criminal Code.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court acquitted the accused.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The New Brunswick Provincial Court stated that an indication of speeding and the smell of alcohol on an accused's breath were reasonable grounds to make a demand to give a breath sample - See paragraph 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicle - lmpaired driving - Breathalyzer - Excuse for refusal to provide breath sample - The accused, an asthmatic, was given a demand to provide a breath sample - She intended to cooperate, but, because of the circumstances and the actions of an R.C.M.P. officer her condition was aggravated so that she could not properly blow into the breathalyzer and establish a reading - The New Brunswick Provincial Court acquitted the accused on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample - See paragraphs 13 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Excuse for refusal to provide breath sample - The New Brunswick Provincial Court referred to the decision in R. v. Nadeau (1974), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 703; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 199, and opined that a reasonable excuse would also include circumstances where compliance with the demand was not only "extremely difficult", but also "impossible" - See paragraphs 13 to 14.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Nadeau (1974), 8 N.B.R.(2d) 703; 19 C.C.C.(2d) 199, appld. [para. 14].

Brownridge v. The Queen (1972), 7 C.C.C.(2d) 417; 18 C.R.N.S. 308; 28 D.L.R.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), reving 4 C.C.C.(2d) 462; 15 C.R.N.S. 387, consd. [para. 14].

R. v. Hoag, 1 C.C.C.(2d) 549, consd. [para. 15].

Hirts v. Wilson, [1969] 3 All E.R. 1566, consd. [para. 15].

Counsel:

William Kearney, for the Crown;

C. David Hughes, for the accused.

This case was heard before STRANGE, J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, at Oromocto, N.B. The decision of STRANGE, J., was delivered at Oromocto, N.B., on November 24, 1981.