R. v. Perras (C.), (2014) 444 Sask.R. 78 (QB)

• Judge: Dawson, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 29, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 444 Sask.R. 78 (QB);2014 SKQB 117

R. v. Perras (C.) (2014), 444 Sask.R. 78 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.045

Her Majesty the Queen v. Claude Perras

(2013 Q.B.G. No. 15; 2014 SKQB 117)

Indexed As: R. v. Perras (C.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Regina

Dawson, J.

April 29, 2014.

Summary:

The accused appealed from his conviction for driving while his licence was suspended, contrary to s. 140(5) of the Traffic Safety Act.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal, quashing the conviction.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Offences - Driving while disqualified or suspended (incl. driving without valid licence) - The accused appealed from his conviction for driving while his licence was suspended, contrary to s. 140(5) of the Traffic Safety Act - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench rejected the accused's arguments that the arresting officer had no grounds for stopping him and had acted inappropriately (not obeying the rules of the road) in doing so - The officer was acting within the scope of her authority to enforce provincial law and to check whether the driver of the vehicle possessed a valid driver's licence when she stopped the accused - There was no evidence to suggest that the accused was stopped for some other improper purpose - The officer's manner of driving in stopping the accused was not relevant - See paragraphs 23 to 30.

Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450

Licensing and regulation of drivers - Offences - Driving while disqualified or suspended (incl. driving without valid licence) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the accused's appeal from his conviction for driving while his licence was suspended, contrary to s. 140(5) of the Traffic Safety Act - The justice of the peace who convicted the accused had accepted the accused's evidence that he did not know that his licence had been suspended for non-payment of fines - However, the justice of the peace erred in rejecting the accused's defence as a mistake of law - The defence was clearly one of mistake of fact - As the offence was one of strict liability, the accused could mount a defence of due diligence or reasonable mistake of fact - In effect, the justice of the peace had characterized the offence as one of absolute liability - This was an error - The two interrelated errors deprived the accused of the opportunity to have the merits of his defence properly assessed - An examination of the evidence led the court to conclude that the accused had successfully established the defence of mistake of fact - There was no evidence that the letter advising the accused that his licence was suspended was ever mailed to him - The accused's mistake was reasonable and occurred through no fault of his own - This rendered his driving innocent - The conviction was unreasonable and was quashed - See paragraphs 31 to 66.

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See first Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450 ].

Trials - Topic 1102

Summary convictions - Defences - Mistake of fact - [See second Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450 ].

Trials - Topic 1103

Summary convictions - Defences - Mistake or ignorance of law - [See second Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450 ].

Trials - Topic 1172

Summary convictions - Strict liability offences - Defence of due diligence or error of fact - [See second Motor Vehicles - Topic 7450 ].

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; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Anderson (J.) (2013), 422 Sask.R. 130; 2013 SKQB 219, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Schaeffer (D.B.) (2005), 257 Sask.R. 219; 342 W.A.C. 219; 2005 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Houben (K.) (2006), 289 Sask.R. 118; 382 W.A.C. 118; 2006 SKCA 129, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Legrande (R.H.) et al. (2013), 549 A.R. 354; 2013 ABQB 30, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Gauchier - see R. v. Legrande (R.H.) et al.

R. v. Bardick (J.) (2009), 332 Sask.R. 185; 2009 SKQB 117, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299; 21 N.R. 295; 85 D.L.R.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 41].

Reference Re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Raham (J.) (2010), 260 O.A.C. 143; 99 O.R.(3d) 241; 2010 ONCA 206, refd to. [para. 43].

Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 420; 346 N.R. 331; 2006 SCC 12, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Lavoie (R.) (2007), 309 Sask.R. 9; 2007 SKQB 262, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Middlebrook, Miller and Laporta (1988), 29 O.A.C. 95; 65 O.R.(2d) 746; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 92 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. MacDougall, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 605; 44 N.R. 560; 54 N.S.R.(2d) 562; 112 A.P.R. 562; 142 D.L.R.(3d) 216, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Auto Clearing (1982) Ltd. et al. (2007), 300 Sask.R. 25; 2007 SKPC 69, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Deforest (T.M.) (2013), 413 Sask.R. 293; 2013 SKPC 30, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Tyndall (T.R.) (2005), 261 Sask.R. 288; 2005 SKPC 38, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kozun (J.) (1997), 154 Sask.R. 81 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Mannion Transport Ltd. (1985), 38 Sask.R. 152; 31 M.V.R. 246 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Montgomery (2006), 36 M.V.R.(5th) 141; 2006 ONCJ 203, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. Beatty, 2013 ONCJ 686, refd to. [para. 55].

R. v. MacLeod, 2013 ONCJ 93, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Harry, 2011 ONCJ 891, refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Lowe (1991), 104 N.S.R.(2d) 81; 283 A.P.R. 81; 29 M.V.R.(2d) 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Valenti (2001), 23 M.V.R.(4th) 283; 2001 BCPC 372, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Cheung (C.H.A.), [2003] B.C.T.C. 1024; 58 W.C.B.(2d) 300; 2003 BCSC 1024, refd to. [para. 61].

R. v. Sousa, 2011 ONCJ 289, refd to. [para. 61].

Statutes Noticed:

Traffic Safety Act, S.S. 2004, c. T-18.1, sect. 140(5) [para. 32].

Counsel:

Derek Davidson, representing the Crown;

Claude Perras, representing himself.

This appeal was heard by Dawson, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Regina, who delivered the following judgment on April 29, 2014.