R. v. Quayle (J.B.), (2013) 573 A.R. 48 (QB)

JudgeYamauchi, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
Case DateSeptember 30, 2013
Citations(2013), 573 A.R. 48 (QB);2013 ABQB 623

R. v. Quayle (J.B.) (2013), 573 A.R. 48 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] A.R. TBEd. NO.005

Jay Barry Quayle (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(120660832S1; 2013 ABQB 623)

Indexed As: R. v. Quayle (J.B.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of St. Paul

Yamauchi, J.

October 21, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. He argued that the arresting officer breached his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The Alberta Provincial Court, in a decision reported at [2013] A.R. Uned. 45, held that there were no Charter violations. The court dismissed the impaired driving charge and found the accused guilty of driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. The accused appealed.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3142

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Arrest or detention - Right to be informed of reasons for (Charter, s. 10(a)) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3608

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - Right to be informed of reasons for - A police officer stopped Quayle for speeding - When he noticed the smell of liquor emanating from Quayle, the officer asked Quayle about his consumption of alcohol - Quayle responded that he had consumed two beer - The officer asked Quayle to exit his vehicle "for a chat", and then had him sit in the police cruiser because he had "been drinking a little alcohol tonight" - The officer demanded and obtained an approved screening device sample which registered a fail - Quayle was arrested and advised of his right to counsel - He was ultimately convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding no violation of his s. 10(a) Charter rights by virtue of the officer's failure to advise him when the focus of the investigation changed from speeding to impaired driving - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - A reasonable person in Quayle's position would have understood the reason why the officer asked him to exit his vehicle and enter the police cruiser - Quayle was "informed" promptly of the reason for his detention when the officer stated that he wanted Quayle to sit in the police cruiser because he had been drinking alcohol - See paragraphs 20 to 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - A police officer arrested Quayle for impaired driving and advised him of his right to counsel - When asked if he wished to contact a lawyer, Quayle responded "Sure, I got nothing to say to anyone, sorry no" - After arriving at the police station, the officer asked Quayle several more times if he wanted to contact a lawyer - Quayle responded with "I'm not going to refuse to blow if that's the only option" and "[The lawyer's] got better things to do" - The officer gave a Prosper warning - Quayle was ultimately convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding no violation of his s. 10(b) Charter rights - He argued that his responses to the officer were clearly premised on a lack of understanding of the purpose of the right to counsel - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - At no time did Quayle say that he wanted to contact a lawyer or that he did not understand the meaning of his right to counsel - Since Quayle did not seek to contact a lawyer, there was no need for the officer to undertake his implementation duty, and no need for Quayle to waive his right to counsel - Although the officer made an unfortunate comment about how lawyers were "awfully good at taking money", this comment was not made until after Quayle indicated that he was not going to call a lawyer - See paragraphs 27 to 51.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.4

Right to counsel - General - Duty of accused to act diligently - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8368 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - A police officer arrested Quayle for impaired driving and advised him of his right to counsel - When asked if he wished to contact a lawyer, Quayle responded "Sure, I got nothing to say to anyone, sorry no" - After arriving at the police station, the officer asked Quayle several more times if he wanted to contact a lawyer - Quayle responded with "I'm not going to refuse to blow if that's the only option" and "[The lawyer's] got better things to do" - The officer gave a Prosper warning - Quayle was ultimately convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit - He appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding no violation of his s. 10(b) Charter rights - He argued that his responses to the officer were clearly premised on a lack of understanding of the purpose of the right to counsel - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that there was no Charter violation, and even if there was, the court would not have excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) - The officer acted in good faith by emphasizing to Quayle that he had a right to contact counsel - To a certain extent, Quayle had an obligation to be diligent and tell the officer that he did not understand his right to counsel - While an accused was never required to testify, the onus was on Quayle to prove a breach of s. 10(b), and he did not provide the trial judge with any evidence in that regard - While the court might surmise that Quayle did not understand his rights, it would never know for sure - The court could therefore not make a finding that the impact of the breach on Quayle's Charter-protected interests favoured exclusion of the evidence - Overall, excluding the evidence would do more harm than good - See paragraphs 52 to 72.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.) (2004), 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. P.L.S., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 909; 122 N.R. 321; 90 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 234; 280 A.P.R. 234; 64 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Andres, [1982] 2 W.W.R. 249; 1 Sask.R. 96 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. G.B. et al. (No. 3), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 57; 111 N.R. 62; 86 Sask.R. 142, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 44 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Yuhas (J.E.) (1993), 114 Sask.R. 34 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 14].

Interfaith Community Organization v. Honeywell Intern. Inc. (2005), 399 F.3d 248 (3rd Cir.), refd to. [para. 15].

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. 16].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 527; 391 N.R. 132; 331 Sask.R. 306; 460 W.A.C. 306; 2009 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Lund (F.O.) (2008), 440 A.R. 362; 438 W.A.C. 362; 2008 ABCA 373, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Orbanski (C.); R. v. Elias (D.J.) (2005), 335 N.R. 342; 195 Man.R.(2d) 161; 351 W.A.C. 161; 2005 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Janzen (K.) (2006), 285 Sask.R. 296; 378 W.A.C. 296; 2006 SKCA 111, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Small (D.J.) (1998), 212 A.R. 356; 168 W.A.C. 356; 1998 ABCA 85, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Kehoe (W.L.), [2010] A.R. Uned. 604; 2010 ABPC 255, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Nixon (A.P.), [2006] A.R. Uned. 548; 2006 ABPC 194, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Turcotte (A.J.) (2008), 462 A.R. 396; 2008 ABPC 16, refd to. [para. 38].

R. v. Willier (S.J.) (2010), 406 N.R. 218; 490 A.R. 1; 497 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 571; 2000 ABCA 301, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Devries (K.) (2009), 252 O.A.C. 34; 244 C.C.C.(3d) 354; 2009 ONCA 477, refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Berger (M.T.) (2012), 533 A.R. 124; 557 W.A.C. 124; 2012 ABCA 189, consd. [para. 44].

R. v. Burlingham (T.W.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 206; 181 N.R. 1; 58 B.C.A.C. 161; 96 W.A.C. 161, dist. [para. 48].

R. v. Timmons (W.T.) (2011), 303 N.S.R.(2d) 91; 957 A.P.R. 91; 2011 NSCA 39, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Spin (R.) (2011), 307 N.S.R.(2d) 344; 975 A.P.R. 344; 2011 NSCA 80, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Grant (D.) (2009), 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Ngai (K.W.) (2010), 474 A.R. 230; 479 W.A.C. 230; 2010 ABCA 10, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Waters (D.B.) (2010), 504 A.R. 304; 2010 ABQB 607, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Simpenzwe (P.N.) (2009), 512 A.R. 49; 2009 ABQB 579, refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Kitaitchik (A.) (2002), 161 O.A.C. 169; 166 C.C.C.(3d) 14 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Bryce (D.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. K80; 87 M.V.R.(5th) 259 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 66].

R. v. Guyett (L.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 4575; 1 M.V.R.(6th) 123; 2010 ONSC 4575, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Harrison (B.) (2009), 391 N.R. 147; 253 O.A.C. 358; 2009 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Du (V.-T.), [2009] O.T.C. Uned. I61; 87 M.V.R.(5th) 105 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 71].

Counsel:

Deborah R. Hatch, for the appellant;

Jared Moore, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on September 30, 2013, before Yamauchi, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of St. Paul, who delivered the following reasons for decision at Calgary, Alberta on October 21, 2013.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • R v Wozny, 2018 ABPC 297
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 Diciembre 2018
    ...Charter violation could not be established without evidence from the appellant. [18]        R v Quayle 2013 ABQB 623 echoed Henry at para. The PCJ noted that the Appellant did not provide PCJ with any evidence. Although the Appellant perhaps felt that the ......
1 cases
  • R v Wozny, 2018 ABPC 297
    • Canada
    • Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
    • 19 Diciembre 2018
    ...Charter violation could not be established without evidence from the appellant. [18]        R v Quayle 2013 ABQB 623 echoed Henry at para. The PCJ noted that the Appellant did not provide PCJ with any evidence. Although the Appellant perhaps felt that the ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT