R. v. Raven (N.), (1999) 96 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

• Judge: Durno, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: January 04, 1999
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1999), 96 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

R. v. Raven (N.) (1999), 96 O.T.C. 259 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1999] O.T.C. TBEd. JA.179

Her Majesty The Queen v. Neil Raven

(Court File No. 1934/98)

Indexed As: R. v. Raven (N.)

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Brampton

Durno, J.

January 4, 1999.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of impaired driving two years after the charge was laid. The accused appealed the conviction arguing that: (1) the trial judge erred in finding that the accused's right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was not breached; (2) the trial judge applied the wrong test in finding the accused guilty of impaired driving; and (3) the conviction was unreasonable.

The Ontario Court (General Division) dismissed the appeal. The total time period, as reduced by waiver and inherent time requirements, was not unreasonable having regard to the interests sought to be protected by s. 11(b) of the Charter, the explanation for the delay and the prejudice to the accused. The court stated, inter alia, that the key to s. 11(b) was the total length of time until the completion of the trial and not the total times (court appearances) required to complete the trial. The total appearances was only relevant if it resulted in prejudice to the accused. The trial judge correctly stated the test for impaired driving and the verdict was reasonable on the evidence.

Civil Rights - Topic 3262

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Waiver of right - See paragraphs 10 to 14.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - See paragraphs 34 to 41.

Civil Rights - Topic 3270

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - Evidence of prejudice and causes of delay - See paragraphs 34 to 41.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - See paragraphs 44 to 59.

Criminal Law - Topic 1363

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Meaning of impairment "by alcohol or a drug" - See paragraphs 44 to 59.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Allen (H.D.) (1996), 92 O.A.C. 345; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 331 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Kalanj; R. v. Pion, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1594; 96 N.R. 191; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 459, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Conway, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659; 96 N.R. 241; 34 O.A.C. 165; 49 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 59 C.C.C.(3d) 449, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Sharma, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 814; 134 N.R. 368; 53 O.A.C. 288; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 184, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Mills, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 863; 67 N.R. 241; 16 O.A.C. 81; 26 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Bailey (S.W.) (1998), 71 O.T.C. 259; 39 W.C.B.(2d) 133 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Silveira (J.V.) (1998), 60 O.T.C. 102 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), affd. [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. McKenzie (1955), 111 C.C.C. 317 (Alta. Dist. Ct.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Linstead (B.), [1998] O.T.C. Uned. 321 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Moric (D.) (1998), 58 O.T.C. 124 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Elvikis (O.) (1997), 31 O.T.C. 161 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Jones, [1996] O.J. No. 687, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Nolan (J.P.) (1997), 27 O.T.C. 379 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Carrie, [1997] O.J. No. 4053, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 59].

Counsel:

Marilyn Bartlett, for the Crown;

Kenneth Jull, for the accused/appellant.

This appeal was heard by Durno, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following judgment on January 4, 1999.