R. v. Pierman (M.B.), (1996) 192 N.R. 237 (SCC)

• Judge: McLachlin and Major, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: January 26, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1996), 192 N.R. 237 (SCC);34 CRR (2d) 187;26 OR (3d) 480;192 NR 237;[1996] 1 SCR 68;89 OAC 146;1996 CanLII 250 (SCC);103 CCC (3d) 382;[1996] SCJ No 5 (QL)

R. v. Pierman (M.B.) (1996), 192 N.R. 237 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Wendel Dewald (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(24363)

Indexed As: R. v. Pierman (M.B.)

Supreme Court of Canada

Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory,

McLachlin and Major, JJ.

January 26, 1996.

Summary:

Dewald was acquitted of failing a breathalyzer test, where the trial judge found his Charter rights were infringed by a 15 minute delay before administering the road­side screening test. The summary conviction appeal court reversed the acquittal and ordered a new trial. Dewald appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Arbour, J.A., dissenting, in a decision reported at 73 O.A.C. 287, dismissed Dewald's appeal. Dewald appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal.

Editor's Note: The Ontario Court of Appeal heard Dewald's appeal together with an appeal in the case of R. v. Pierman (M.B.). Pierman did not appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes - An officer stopped the accused's vehicle and detected the smell of alcohol - The accused made no statement about drinking - The officer waited 15 minutes before administering a roadside screening test to ensure a fair result - Breathalyzer tests demonstrated a blood-alcohol content twice the permitted level - The trial judge concluded that the ac­cused's Charter rights were breached by the delay, excluded the breathalyzer evidence and acquitted the accused - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the accus­ed's Char­ter rights were breached - How­ever, admis­sion of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, where its admission did not render the trial unfair and the breach of the Charter was technical and the police officer acted in good faith.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.2

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Time and place for - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3604 ].

Cases Noticed

R. v. Bernshaw (N.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 254; 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1, appld. [para. 1].

R. v. Rilling, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183; 5 N.R. 327, refd to. [para. 2].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 254(2) [para. 1].

Counsel:

Irwin Koziebrocki, for the appellant;

Rick Libman, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin and Major, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. On January 26, 1996, Sopinka, J., orally delivered the following judgment in both official lan­guages for the court.