R. v. Riopel (K.E.), 2015 ABPC 157

• Judge: Malin, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: July 14, 2015
• Citations: 2015 ABPC 157;[2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.131

R. v. Riopel (K.E.), [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.131

MLB being edited

Currently being edited for A.R. - judgment temporarily in rough form.

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JL.131

Her Majesty the Queen v. Kasandra Elizabeth Riopel (accused)

(141326397P1; 2015 ABPC 157)

Indexed As: R. v. Riopel (K.E.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Judicial District of Edmonton

Malin, P.C.J.

July 14, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged that she operated a motor vehicle while her ability to operate the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or a drug. The accused was arrested after driving erratically. After her arrest, she was observed unconscious on the floor of the police vehicle sweating profusely from her face. She was unconscious throughout the ambulance ride to the hospital. The findings of an RCMP forensic toxicology specialist (Dagenais) were that there were 59 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of the accused's blood at the time the blood was taken and using an elimination rate of between 10% and 20% per hour, there would have been a concentration of between 72 and 86 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of the accused's blood at the time she was operating the vehicle. Dagenais concluded that alcohol, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) and methylendioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) were the significant drugs found in the blood analysis. The defence admitted that the accused consumed alcohol (three vodka drinks), but in an amount insufficient to impair her ability to drive. The defence submitted that the accused's impairment was due to her involuntary consumption of GHB and MDMA.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused guilty. The court stated that "I have a doubt that the accused voluntarily or knowingly consumed GHB and MDMA, which drugs almost certainly exacerbated the effects of the alcohol knowingly and voluntarily consumed by the accused, but I have no doubt that the amount of alcohol she consumed was, in and of itself, enough to impair her ability to drive. I am satisfied that the accused has failed to rebut the prima facie case established by the Crown and admitted by the defence. Finally, ... although not critical or essential to my decision in this matter, I am satisfied that the accused was not disabled from being able to appreciate and know that she was impaired at the time that she undertook to drive. The accused admitted she started to feel 'fuzzy' after she started to drive. She was feeling the effects of her consumption, yet she continued to drive a substantial distance. In my view, the accused knew, ought to have known or was reckless to the fact that after drinking an unknown quantity of alcohol in about one hour prior to driving, her ability to drive a motor vehicle was impaired."

Criminal Law - Topic 1361

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Intention - See paragraphs 41 to 58.

Counsel:

B. Smith, for the Crown;

M. Chadi, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Malin, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following decision on July 14, 2015.