R. v. Pol (J.) et al., 2011 ABPC 121

• Judge: Creagh, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 06, 2011
• Citations: 2011 ABPC 121;(2011), 525 A.R. 169 (PC)

R. v. Pol (J.) (2011), 525 A.R. 169 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] A.R. TBEd. AP.041

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Jan Pol (applicant) and Chief of Police, Edmonton Police Service (intervenor)

(081565558P1; 2011 ABPC 121)

Indexed As: R. v. Pol (J.) et al.

Alberta Provincial Court

Creagh, P.C.J.

April 6, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired operation offences. The accused intended to argue that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds to demand breath samples and to raise the "evidence to the contrary" defence. The Chief of Police produced some information relating to the maintenance and functioning of the approved screening device and Intoxilyzer machines to the Crown for the purpose of disclosure. He declined to produce other information, principally historical data concerning past maintenance done on these machines and the results of tests conducted after the accused was tested. The accused applied for further disclosure.

The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application in part.

Criminal Law - Topic 129

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to discovery or production (disclosure) - The accused was charged with impaired operation offences relating to October 17, 2008 - The accused intended to argue that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds to demand breath samples and to raise the "evidence to the contrary" defence - The Chief of Police produced some information relating to the maintenance and functioning of the approved screening device (ASD) and Intoxilyzer machines to the Crown for the purpose of disclosure - He declined to produce other information, principally historical data concerning past maintenance done on these machines and the results of tests conducted after the accused was tested - The accused applied for further disclosure - The Alberta Provincial Court allowed the application in part - The Chief of Police was to disclose the notes and check list and any other supporting material relating to the annual inspection and calibration procedure performed on February 26, 2008 on the breath simulator (incl. check sheets, notes by the technician conducting the inspection, etc.) - Also, the notes and check list and any other supporting material relating to the annual inspection and calibration procedure performed on May 5, 2008 on the breath simulator (incl. check sheets and notes by the technician conducting the inspection) - Further, a copy of the Intoxilyzer use and calibration check log relating to the tests done before the tests on the accused and after the last alcohol standard change - Many of the calibration records and maintenance logs and other records respecting the ASD and Intoxilyzer which were created subsequent to the accused's charges were not relevant.

Criminal Law - Topic 1384.4

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Production of breathalyzer maintenance records or data - [See Criminal Law - Topic 129 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.4

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Evidence and proof (incl. whether device approved, calibration record, etc.) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 129 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4505

Procedure - Trial - Special duties of Crown - Duty to disclose evidence prior to trial - [See Criminal Law - Topic 129 ].

Police - Topic 2212

Duties - General duties - Disclosure of information - [See Criminal Law - Topic 129 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326; 130 N.R. 277; 120 A.R. 161; 8 W.A.C. 161; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 8 C.R.(4th) 277, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81; 82 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 21 C.R.(4th) 186, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. O'Connor (H.P.), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411; 191 N.R. 1; 68 B.C.A.C. 1; 112 W.A.C. 1; 44 C.R.(4th) 1; 103 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Scurr (J.L.) et al. (2008), 441 A.R. 203; 2008 ABQB 127, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Coopsammy (D.O.) (2008), 445 A.R. 160; 2008 ABQB 266, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. McNeil (L.) (2009), 383 N.R. 1; 246 O.A.C. 154; 238 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 29].

Duff v. Alberta (Attorney General) et al. (2010), 497 A.R. 16; 2010 ABPC 250, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Kwas (R.G.) (2009), 483 A.R. 359; 2009 ABPC 334, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McNutt (J.B.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 525; 2010 ABPC 190, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Klug (K.W.) (2010), 500 A.R. 293; 2010 ABPC 88, refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Black (W.J.) (2010), 498 A.R. 229; 2010 ABQB 461, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.) (1995), 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 56].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Oduneye (S.O.) (1995), 169 A.R. 353; 97 W.A.C. 353; 15 M.V.R.(3d) 161 (C.A.), leave to appeal dismissed (1995), 198 N.R. 400; 187 A.R. 319; 127 W.A.C. 319 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 59].

R. v. Ellerman (B.H.) (2000), 255 A.R. 149; 220 W.A.C. 149; 2000 ABCA 47, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2005), 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 196 C.C.C.(3d) 481 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Boucher (E.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499; 342 N.R. 42; 2005 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. MacDonald (M.F.) (2006), 391 A.R. 140; 377 W.A.C. 140; 2006 ABCA 177, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Gibson (R.A.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 397; 373 N.R. 1; 429 A.R. 327; 421 W.A.C. 327; 264 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 847 A.P.R. 331; 230 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 55 C.R.(6th) 201; 2008 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 84].

R. v. Gubins, 2009 ONCJ 80, refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. Caruth (R.K.) (2004), 360 A.R. 246; 2004 ABQB 411, refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. Balfour, 2009 ONCJ 308, refd to. [para. 107].

R. v. Ahmed, 2010 ONCJ 130, refd. to. [para. 107].

Counsel:

Robert Sera, for the respondent;

Thomas Engel, for the applicant;

J. Mark Raven-Jackson, for the intervenor.

This application was heard before Creagh, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on April 6, 2011.