R. v. Power,

• Judge: Watson, J.
• Neutral Citation: 2002 ABQB 153
• Citation: 2002 ABQB 153,(2002), 311 A.R. 27 (QB),[2002] 8 WWR 495,311 AR 27,3 Alta LR (4th) 158,[2002] CarswellAlta 237,[2002] AJ No 178 (QL),25 MVR (3d) 234,[2002] A.J. No 178 (QL),(2002), 311 AR 27 (QB),311 A.R. 27
• Date: 01 February 2002
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)

R. v. Power (K.M.) (2002), 311 A.R. 27 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [202] A.R. TBEd. FE.111

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Krista Marie Power (appellant)

(Action No. 016082232-S-10101; 2002 ABQB 153)

Indexed As: R. v. Power (K.M.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Fort McMurray

Watson, J.

February 11, 2002.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood alcohol level. The trial judge convicted the accused of impaired driving, but acquitted her of driving while having an excessive blood alcohol level. The trial judge sentenced the accused to a fine of $850 and five days' imprisonment. The accused appealed her conviction and sentence.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the conviction appeal. The court allowed the sentence appeal and deleted the five day term of imprisonment.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench discussed the appropriate test for proof of impaired driving under s. 253(a) of the Criminal Code - The court stated, inter alia, that "The manner of operating the motor vehicle may be circumstantial evidence of the condition of the motorist, but it is not a requisite element of the actus reus" - The court stated that it did not detect in R. v. Andrews (Alta. C.A.), an obligation on the trial judge, in evaluating evidence of impairment, "to expressly itemize, address and exclude or negative all bits of circumstantial implication of that condition merely because other inferences are within the bounds of rationality" - Further, the court rejected the argument that trial judges should "decline to convict if they were satisfied of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because on some other level they might wonder if such a conviction is 'safe'. Safety in such a context can connote a concept of absolute certainty." - See paragraphs 39 to 77.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The trial judge convicted the accused of impaired driving - The accused appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in using evidence of the accused's fail on a screening test in convicting the accused - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that if the trial judge used the fail as evidence that the accused had been drinking alcohol or to set aside the explanations of physiological indicia of the accused's condition, it would apply s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code to uphold the conviction, assuming these uses were errors of law - There was other admissible evidence that the accused had been drinking and the alleged explanations were all conjectural - If the trial judge used the fail result as specific evidence on which to infer the accused's guilt, the court doubted that s. 686(1)(b)(iii) would apply - However, the court held that the trial judge did not use evidence of the fail in this manner - See paragraphs 86 to 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 5830.9

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Uniqueness of community where offence committed - The trial judge convicted the accused of impaired driving - In sentencing the accused, the trial judge, inter alia, took judicial notice of the local circumstances of the community and, in particular, the problem with impaired driving - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that "the judicial notice taken by the trial judge was within a reasonable scope of application of the law of judicial notice" - See paragraphs 104 to 112.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents - Starting point principle - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "Trial Judges are not in a position to establish local starting points which bind other judges, nor can they entirely fetter their own discretion as to sentence. ... the role of the Court of Appeal in the sentencing process, ... is to provide an overall supervision of the sentencing practice. ... The process of recognizing starting points is appellate. It is necessarily so as it is driven by the Code's appellate jurisdiction, and by the recognition of typifiable categories or examples of cases. A Trial Judge is not sentencing a 'type', but a person. A Court of Appeal is defining a 'type' to help the Trial Judges sentence persons. ..." - See paragraphs 129 to 131.

Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Sentence precedents - Starting point principle - The trial judge convicted the 21 year old accused of impaired driving - In sentencing the accused, the trial judge indicated that due to the prevalence of drinking and driving in the community, he had instituted a policy whereby all first-time offenders were subject to a five-day custodial sentence - The trial judge imposed a $850 fine and five days' imprisonment - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that the trial judge erred in stipulating an effective minimum prison term for first offenders in his jurisdiction -He could not fetter his discretion in this way - However, the court added that it was not an error of law for trial judges to formulate in their minds a policy to guide them - It was only the inflexibility of such notions that was an error - The court altered the accused's sentence by deleting the five days' imprisonment - See paragraphs 124 to 150.

Criminal Law - Topic 5849.13

Sentencing - Considerations on imposing sentence - Drinking and driving offences - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5886

Sentence - Impaired driving - [See second Criminal Law - Topic 5846.5 ].

Evidence - Topic 2260

Special modes of proof - Judicial notice - Particular matters - Social conditions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5830.9 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 1].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 31 C.R.(4th) 60; 3 M.V.R.(3d) 1; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160; 18 O.R.(3d) 800, affing. (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 18 C.R.(4th) 127; 43 M.V.R.(2d) 120; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380; 12 O.R.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 2].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392; 46 C.R.(4th) 74 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1996), 205 N.R. 158; 193 A.R. 79; 135 W.A.C. 79; 106 C.C.C.(3d) vi (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 31, footnote 3].

R. v. Proulx (J.K.D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61; 249 N.R. 201; 142 Man.R.(2d) 161; 212 W.A.C. 161; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 30 C.R.(5th) 1; [2000] 4 W.W.R. 21; 182 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 44 W.C.B.(2d) 479; 49 M.V.R.(3d) 163, reving. [1998] 5 W.W.R. 1; 123 Man.R.(2d) 107; 159 W.A.C. 107; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 68 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 4].

R. v. Brady (J.R.), [1998] 7 W.W.R. 272; 209 A.R. 321; 160 W.A.C. 321; 121 C.C.C.(3d) 504; 15 C.R.(5th) 110 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34, footnote 5].

R. v. Polturak (1988), 90 A.R. 158 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 7].

R. v. Drader (1978), 19 A.R. 451 (Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 8].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 32 C.R.(5th) 1, reving. (1998), 104 B.C.A.C. 203; 170 W.A.C. 203; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 8].

R. v. Brezinski (C.C.) (2000), 268 A.R. 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 40, footnote 9].

R. v. Lister (D.), [1997] O.J. No. 3153 (Prov. Div.), not folld. [para. 40, footnote 10].

R. v. Landes (T.) (1997), 161 Sask.R. 305 (Q.B.), not folld. [para. 40, footnote 12].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 66 C.R.(3d) 1; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193, affing. (1987), 21 O.A.C. 38; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 50 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 13].

R. v. Bouvier (1984), 1 O.A.C. 302; 11 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.) affd. [1985] 2 S.C.R. 485; 64 N.R. 321; 11 O.A.C. 185; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 576, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 14].

R. v. Lynch, Malone and King (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 7 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 42, footnote 14].

R. v. Anderson, [1978] 1 W.W.R. 404; 7 A.R. 531 (C.A.), appeal adjourned sine die [1979] 1 S.C.R. 630, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 15].

R. v. Stewart, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 748; 12 N.R. 201; 1 A.R. 455; [1976] 6 W.W.R. 644; 31 C.C.C.(2d) 497; 71 D.L.R.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 42, footnote 15].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 257; 49 C.R.(3d) 136; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 673; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 453, refd to. [para. 43, footnote 16].

R. v. Lifchus (W.), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 320; 216 N.R. 215; 118 Man.R.(2d) 218; 149 W.A.C. 218; 118 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 9 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 10 W.W.R. 570, affing. [1996] 6 W.W.R. 577; 110 Man.R.(2d) 199; 118 W.A.C. 199; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 226; 48 C.R.(4th) 256 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 43, footnote 17].

R. v. Knight (D.C.) (2001), 237 N.B.R.(2d) 148; 612 A.P.R. 148; 11 M.V.R.(4th) 219 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48, footnote 19].

R. v. Malhotra (T.R.) (2001), 213 Sask.R. 242; 260 W.A.C. 242 (C.A.), reving. (2001), 206 Sask.R. 120 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 52, footnote 20].

Hodge's Case (1838), 2 Lew. C.C. 227; 168 E.R. 1136, refd to. [para. 53, footnote 21].

R. v. Cooper, [1978] 1 S.C.R. 860; 14 N.R. 181; 37 C.R.N.S. 1; 34 C.C.C.(2d) 18; 74 D.L.R.(3d) 731, reving. (1975), 7 O.R.(2d) 429 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 54, footnote 22].

R. v. D.O.L., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 419; 161 N.R. 1; 88 Man.R.(2d) 241; 51 W.A.C. 241; 25 C.R.(4th) 285; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 18 C.R.R.(2d) 257, reving. (1991), 73 Man.R.(2d) 238; 3 W.A.C. 238; 6 C.R.(4th) 277; 65 C.C.C.(3d) 465 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 55, footnote 23].

R. v. Starr (R.D.), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 144; 258 N.R. 250; 148 Man.R.(2d) 161; 224 W.A.C. 161; 147 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 36 C.R.(5th) 1; 190 D.L.R.(4th) 591; [2000] 11 W.W.R. 1, reving. (1998), 123 Man.R.(2d) 292; 159 W.A.C. 292; 123 C.C.C.(3d) 145 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 56, footnote 24].

R. v. Smith (K.M.) (1992), 131 A.R. 59; 25 W.A.C. 59; 73 C.C.C.(3d) 285 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 27].

R. v. Smith (S.M.) (1994), 44 B.C.A.C. 302; 71 W.A.C. 302 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 60, footnote 28].

R. v. Paul, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 621; 42 N.R. 1; 27 C.R.(3d) 193; 67 C.C.C.(2d) 97; 138 D.L.R.(3d) 455, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 29].

R. v. Hasselwander, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398; 152 N.R. 247; 62 O.A.C. 285; 81 C.C.C.(3d) 471; 20 C.R.(4th) 277, reving. (1991), 50 O.A.C. 186; 5 O.R.(3d) 225; 67 C.C.C.(3d) 426; 9 C.R.(4th) 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62, footnote 30].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1; 154 D.L.R.(4th) 193; 50 C.B.R.(3d) 163; 33 C.C.E.L.(2d) 173; 98 C.L.L.C. 210-006, refd to. [para. 62, footnote 31].

Adrien v. Ontario (Minister of Labour) - see Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re.

R. v. Geerligs (R.J.) (1994), 159 A.R. 254; 25 W.C.B.(2d) 30 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 65, footnote 34].

R. v. Brannan (C.A.) (1999), 132 B.C.A.C. 23; 215 W.A.C. 23; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 394 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 35].

R. v. Harding (J.F.) (1998), 166 N.S.R.(2d) 235; 498 A.P.R. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 36].

R. v. Trobert (G.M.) (2000), 199 Sask.R. 224; 232 W.A.C. 224 (C.A.), affing. [1999] Sask.R. Uned. 239 (Q.B.), and affing. (2000), 190 Sask.R. 115 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 68, footnote 37].

R. v. Mercer (W.) (2000), 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 174; 571 A.P.R. 174 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 72, footnote 39].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 31 C.R.(3d) 289; 18 M.V.R. 287; 2 C.C.C.(3d) 365; 144 D.L.R.(3d) 267, affing. (1980), 45 N.R. 474; 17 C.R.(3d) 55; 30 O.R.(2d) 247; 7 M.V.R. 163; 55 C.C.C.(2d) 429; 116 D.L.R.(3d) 143 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 73, footnote 40].

R. v. Noble (S.J.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874; 210 N.R. 321; 89 B.C.A.C. 1; 145 W.A.C. 1; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 6 C.R.(5th) 1; [1997] 6 W.W.R. 1, affing. (1996), 75 B.C.A.C. 98; 123 W.A.C. 98; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 161; 47 C.R.(4th) 258 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 78, footnote 42].

R. v. Franklin (W.T.) (1997), 221 A.R. 356 (Q.B.), dist. [para. 81, footnote 44].

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; [1995] 3 W.W.R. 457; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 8 M.V.R.(3d) 75; 26 C.R.R.(2d) 132, reving. (1993), 28 B.C.A.C. 247; 47 W.A.C. 247 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 46].

R. v. Coutts (D.) (1999), 121 O.A.C. 342; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 225; 25 C.R.(5th) 362; 64 C.R.R.(2d) 34; 43 M.V.R.(3d) 28; 45 O.R.(3d) 288 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 47].

R. v. Thompson (N.) (2001), 141 O.A.C. 1; 151 C.C.C.(3d) 339; 8 M.V.R.(4th) 167; 41 C.R.(5th) 344 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 48].

R. v. Domazet (M.), [1999] O.A.C. Uned. 124 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 88, footnote 49].

R. v. McMaster (R.A.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 740; 194 N.R. 278; 181 A.R. 199; 116 W.A.C. 199; [1996] 4 W.W.R. 660; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 46 C.R.(4th) 41, refd to. [para. 91, footnote 50].

R. v. Khan (M.A.) (2001), 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 138 Man.R.(2d) 23; 202 W.A.C. 23; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 391 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 51].

R. v. Jolivet (D.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 751; 254 N.R. 1; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 33 C.R.(5th) 1; 185 D.L.R.(4th) 626, reving. (1998), 125 C.C.C.(3d) 210; 20 C.R.(5th) 326 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 52].

R. v. Jabarianha (A.) (2001), 277 N.R. 388; 158 B.C.A.C. 82; 258 W.A.C. 82; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 206 D.L.R.(4th) 87 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 82; 214 W.A.C. 82; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 242 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93, footnote 53].

R. v. Jacobs (1982), 39 A.R. 391; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 569; 16 M.V.R. 15 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 102, footnote 54].

R. v. Biancofiore (N.F.) (1997), 103 O.A.C. 292; 29 M.V.R.(3d) 90; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 344; 10 C.R.(5th) 200 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 103, footnote 56].

R. v. L.F.W., [2000] 1 S.C.R. 132; 249 N.R. 345; 185 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 562 A.P.R. 1; 140 C.C.C.(3d) 539; 30 C.R.(5th) 73, affing. (1997), 155 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 115; 481 A.P.R. 115; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 97 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 105, footnote 57].

R. v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500; 194 N.R. 321; 73 B.C.A.C. 81; 120 W.A.C. 81; 105 C.C.C.(3d) 327; 46 C.R.(4th) 269, reving. (1994), 40 B.C.A.C. 7; 65 W.A.C. 7; 28 C.R.(4th) 106 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106, footnote 59].

R. v. Rahime (S.) et al., [2001] 10 W.W.R. 428; 286 A.R. 377; 253 W.A.C. 377; 156 C.C.C.(3d) 349 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 107, footnote 60].

R. v. Williams (V.D.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1128; 226 N.R. 162; 107 B.C.A.C. 1; 174 W.A.C. 1; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 15 C.R.(5th) 227; [1999] 4 W.W.R. 711, reving. [1997] 1 C.N.L.R. 153; 75 B.C.A.C. 135; 123 W.A.C. 135; 106 C.C.C.(3d) 215; 48 C.R.(4th) 97; 134 D.L.R.(4th) 519 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 110, footnote 61].

R. v. Palmer, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; 30 N.R. 181; 14 C.R.(3d) 22 (Eng.); 17 C.R.(3d) 34 (Fr.); 50 C.C.C.(2d) 193; 106 D.L.R.(3d) 212, refd to. [para. 114, footnote 62].

R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 333; 33 C.R.(4th) 73; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 89, reving. (1993), 135 A.R. 249; 33 W.A.C. 249; 80 C.C.C.(3d) 449; 15 C.R.R.(2d) 79; 44 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), reving. (1992), 124 A.R. 136; 11 C.R.(4th) 122; 35 M.V.R.(2d) 176 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 114, footnote 63].

R. v. Pan (R.W.); R. v. Sawyer (B.) (2001), 270 N.R. 317; 147 O.A.C. 1; 155 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 43 C.R.(5th) 203; 200 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (S.C.C.), affing. (1999), 120 O.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 26 C.R.(5th) 87 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 123, footnote 64].

R. v. McDonnell (T.E.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 948; 210 N.R. 241; 196 A.R. 321; 141 W.A.C. 321; 114 C.C.C.(3d) 436; 6 C.R.(5th) 231; [1997] 7 W.W.R. 44, reving. (1995), 169 A.R. 170; 97 W.A.C. 170 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 65].

R. v. Stone (B.T.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290; 239 N.R. 201; 123 B.C.A.C. 1; 201 W.A.C. 1; 134 C.C.C.(3d) 353; 173 D.L.R.(4th) 66, refd to. [para. 126, footnote 66].

R. v. Wells (J.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 207; 250 N.R. 364; 250 A.R. 273; 213 W.A.C. 273; 141 C.C.C.(3d) 368; 30 C.R.(5th) 254; [2000] 3 W.W.R. 613, affing. (1998), 216 A.R. 61; 175 W.A.C. 61; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 129; 61 Alta. L.R.(3d) 377 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 126, footnote 67].

R. v. Sandercock, [1986] 1 W.W.R. 291; 62 A.R. 382; 48 C.R.(3d) 154; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 79; 40 Alta. L.R.(2d) 265 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 127, footnote 69].

R. v. Gladue (J.T.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 688; 238 N.R. 1; 121 B.C.A.C. 161; 198 W.A.C. 161; 133 C.C.C.(3d) 385, affing. (1997), 98 B.C.A.C. 120; 161 W.A.C. 120; 119 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 11 C.R.(5th) 108 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 133, footnote 72].

R. v. Hatcher (S.) (2000), 190 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 1; 576 A.P.R. 1; 146 C.C.C.(3d) 426; 4 M.V.R.(4th) 310 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 139, footnote 74].

R. v. McNamara (H.) et al. (No.2) (1981), 56 C.C.C.(2d) 516 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 142, footnote 75].

R. v. Wust (L.W.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455; 252 N.R. 332; 134 B.C.A.C. 236; 219 W.A.C. 236; 184 D.L.R.(4th) 385; 143 C.C.C.(3d) 129, reving. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43; 17 C.R.(5th) 45; 53 C.R.R.(2d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 76].

R. v. Arthurs (K.N.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 481; 252 N.R. 325; 134 B.C.A.C. 274; 219 W.A.C. 274, reving. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43; 17 C.R.(5th) 45; 53 C.R.R.(2d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 76].

R. v. Arrance (C.R.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 488; 252 N.R. 319; 134 B.C.A.C. 268; 219 W.A.C. 268, reving. (1998), 107 B.C.A.C. 130; 174 W.A.C. 130; 125 C.C.C.(3d) 43; 17 C.R.(5th) 45; 53 C.R.R.(2d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 149, footnote 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253(a) [para. 39].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Driedger, Elmer A., Construction of Statutes (2nd Ed. 1983), p. 87 [para. 62].

Counsel:

James R. Jacques (Crown Prosecutor's Office), for the respondent;

R.S. (Ravi) Prithipaul (Gunn & Prithipaul), for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on February 1, 2002, by Watson, J. of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Fort McMurray, who delivered the following judgment on February 11, 2002.