R. v. Renny (D.C.), (2007) 296 Sask.R. 236 (PC)

• Judge: Kolenick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 18, 2007
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2007), 296 Sask.R. 236 (PC);2007 SKPC 29

R. v. Renny (D.C.) (2007), 296 Sask.R. 236 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2007] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.031

Her Majesty the Queen v. Renny (D.C.)

(Information No. 39981619; 2007 SKPC 29)

Indexed As: R. v. Renny (D.C.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kolenick, P.C.J.

May 18, 2007.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol level in excess of the legal limit. The accused alleged breaches of his ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) Charter rights and he sought an order excluding both the "fail" result on the approved screening device and the certificate of analysis.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of the impaired driving charge where the Crown conceded that the evidence did not support a conviction. With respect to the Charter arguments, the court held that there had been a breach of the accused's ss. 8 and 9 rights where the evidence did not establish that the search and seizure conducted by the police with respect to the approved screening device procedure had been reasonably done. The court excluded the results of the approved screening device test and the certificate of analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter. In light of the exclusion of that evidence, there was no need to consider the accused's argument alleging a breach of his right to counsel under s. 10(b).

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Breath or blood samples - The accused was charged with driving with an excessive blood-alcohol level - The accused raised the issue of whether his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached where Cst. Racicot made the approved screening device demand, but Cst. Barbar administered the test - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that it was not required to determine whether it was appropriate for Cst. Barbar to take the sample when Cst. Racicot made the demand - Rather, the more fundamental issue was the manner in which the two officers executed their respective roles in the approved screening device process - The evidence did not establish that the search and seizure conducted by the two officers with respect to the approved screening device procedure had been reasonably done where Cst. Racicot failed to determine if there had been recent alcohol consumption and Cst. Barbar concluded that there may have been recent consumption, but he failed to obtain the details or delay the testing for 15 minutes in order to eliminate the result being affected by the presence of mouth alcohol - The accused was therefore arbitrarily detained and his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were infringed - The court excluded the results of the approved screening device test and the certificate of analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter - The evidence was conscriptive and the relative indifference with which the police officers approached the critical issues of prior recent consumption and the risk of residual mouth alcohol showed bad faith - The seriousness of the breach was such that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 30 to 46.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.2

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Time and place for (incl. residual mouth alcohol) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Klassen (C.W.) (2004), 358 A.R. 362; 14 M.V.R.(5th) 293; 2004 ABPC 89, consd. [para. 31].

R. v. Dewar, [2005] O.J. No. 3614 (C.J.), consd. [para. 31].

R. v. Cullum (2001), 15 M.V.R.(4th) 267 (Ont. C.J.), refd to. [para. 31].

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; 35 C.R.(4th) 201; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193; [1995] 3 W.W.R. 457, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Olak (1990), 37 O.A.C. 304; 55 C.C.C.(3d) 257 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Counsel:

Dan Dahl, for the Crown;

Darryl Labach, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard before Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following ruling on May 18, 2007.