R. v. Pelech (T.G.), 2011 ABQB 88

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 10, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABQB 88;(2011), 507 A.R. 389 (QB)

R. v. Pelech (T.G.) (2011), 507 A.R. 389 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. MR.145

Her Majesty the Queen (Crown/respondent) v. Travis Gregory Pelech (appellant)

(091562215S1; 2011 ABQB 88)

Indexed As: R. v. Pelech (T.G.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

March 16, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of impaired driving. The accused appealed, arguing that the judge failed to apply the rule in Hodge's case.

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

Editor's Note: An application by the Crown for leave to appeal was granted - see (2011), 510 A.R. 323; 527 W.A.C. 323.

Criminal Law - Topic 4358

Procedure - Charge or directions - Jury or judge alone - Directions regarding circumstantial evidence - [See Evidence - Topic 306 ].

Evidence - Topic 306

Circumstantial evidence - Rule in Hodge's Case - Whether evidence consistent with other rational conclusions - The accused was stopped by police after he drove out of the parking lot of a tap house with no lights on and went through three stop signs - The police had difficulty stopping the accused although he ultimately pulled over - Indicia of impairment were present - The accused was convicted of impaired driving - He appealed, arguing that the judge failed to apply the rule in Hodge's case - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, applying the standard of correctness, allowed the appeal - The trial judge failed to consider the rule in Hodge's case thereby committing the error of failing to consider whether the inference of impairment by alcohol was the only rational inference that could be drawn from the evidence - Here, although the trial judge did not have to refer to the rule in Hodge's case by name, and did not have to use any dedicated formula in discussing the way in which he was assessing circumstantial evidence, he was obliged to hold the rule in Hodge's case in contemplation while coming to his decision.

Cases Noticed:

Hodge's Case, Re (1838), 2 Lew. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 1].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 1996 ABCA 23, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Tavone (A.), [2007] O.T.C. Uned. H19 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Landes (T.) (1997), 161 Sask.R. 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Vandale (J.E.) (2001), 205 Sask.R. 307; 2001 CanLII 384 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Von Maldeghem (C.C.L.G.) (2005), 383 A.R. 117; 2005 ABQB 558, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Biniaris (J.) (2000), 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. W.R.P. (2007), 412 A.R. 176; 404 W.A.C. 176; 2007 ABCA 187, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Eastwood (J.A.) (2008), 433 A.R. 239; 429 W.A.C. 239; 2008 ABCA 181, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Waters (D.B.) (2010), 504 A.R. 304; 2010 ABQB 607, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. R.E.M. (2008), 380 N.R. 47; 260 B.C.A.C. 40; 439 W.A.C. 40; 2008 CarswellBC 2037; 2008 SCC 51, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morin (1988), 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 1988 CarswellOnt 82 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 CarswellSask 178; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 1993 CarswellOnt 74 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Power (K.M.) (2002), 311 A.R. 27; 2002 CarswellAlta 237; 2002 ABQB 153, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Morrissey (R.J.) (1995), 80 O.A.C. 161; 1995 CarswellOnt 18 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Griffin (J.) et al. (2009), 388 N.R. 334; 2009 SCC 28, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cooper (1977), 14 N.R. 181 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 21].

Counsel:

Julie Snowdon (Crown Prosecutor's Office), for the Crown/respondent;

Thomas E. Plupek (Pahl Howard Rowland LLP), for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on February 10, 2011, by Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Appeal, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on March 16, 2011.