R. v. Perry, (1980) 33 N.R. 106 (SCC)

• Judge: Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: June 11, 1980
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1980), 33 N.R. 106 (SCC)

R. v. Perry (1980), 33 N.R. 106 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Perry

Indexed As: R. v. Perry

Supreme Court of Canada

Martland, Ritchie, Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Chouinard and Lamer, JJ.

June 11, 1980.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. Samples of the accused's breath were taken for breathalyzer analysis at 3:00 and 3:15. The trial judge found "that the interval between the times when the samples were taken was 15 complete minutes", but acquitted the accused on the ground that there was not "an interval of at least 15 minutes between" the tests as required by s. 237 (1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code. The Crown appealed. The British Columbia Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The accused appealed. The British Columbia Court of Appeal, Bull, J.A., dissenting, dismissed the appeal and held that the samples were taken at least 15 minutes apart as required by s. 237(1)(c)(ii). See paragraphs 3 to 37 below. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. See paragraphs 1 to 2.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - Time interval between breath tests - Meaning of "at least 15 minutes" - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 237(1)(c) - The breath of the accused was analyzed at 3:00 and 3:15 - The trial judge found "that the interval between the times when the samples were taken was 15 complete minutes", but acquitted the accused on the ground that the tests were not taken "at least 15 minutes" apart - The Supreme Court of Canada held that the breath tests were taken "at least 15 minutes" apart within the meaning of s. 237(1)(c).

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Noble (1978), 17 N.R. 555; 40 C.R.N.S. 19, consd. [para. 4].

R. v. Stenquist, [1977] 4 W.W.R. 559, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Davis, [1977] 1 W.W.R. 455 (Sask. Q.B.), consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Tremble, [1977] 3 W.W.R. 575, consd. [para. 8].

R. v. Davis (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 224, not folld. [para. 28].

R. v. Suter (1977), 22 N.S.R.(2d) 273; 31 A.P.R. 273; 37 C.C.C.(2d) 127, not folld. [para. 30].

R. v. Dauphine (1977), 18 N.B.R.(2d) 148; 26 A.P.R. 148; 38 C.C.C.(2d) 107, not folld. [para. 31].

R. v. Staiger, [1977] 5 W.W.R. 476; 4 A.R. 494, not folld. [para. 32].

R. v. Andrushko, [1977] 6 W.W.R. 214, not folld. [para. 35].

R. v. Wolf, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 107; [1974] 6 W.W.R. 368; 2 N.R. 415; 17 C.C.C.(2d) 425; 27 C.R.N.S. 150; 47 D.L.R.(3d) 741, refd to. [para. 36].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 237(1)(c)(ii).

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 25(2) [paras. 12 and 30].

Counsel:

Russell Kronick and Robert Steinberg, for the appellant;

William J. Simpson, Q.C., and Charles T. Hackland, for the respondent.

This case was heard on June 11, 1980, at Ottawa, Ontario before MARTLAND, RITCHIE, BEETZ, ESTEY, McINTYRE, CHOUINARD and LAMER, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On June 11, 1980 MARTLAND, J., delivered the following oral judgment for the Supreme Court of Canada: