R. v. Rodriguez (R.), (2015) 474 Sask.R. 284 (PC)

• Judge: Toth, P.C.J.
• Case Date: May 25, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 474 Sask.R. 284 (PC);2015 SKPC 65

R. v. Rodriguez (R.) (2015), 474 Sask.R. 284 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.054

Her Majesty the Queen v. Ricardo Rodriguez

(Information No. 90004998; 2015 SKPC 65)

Indexed As: R. v. Rodriguez (R.)

Saskatchewan Proincial Court

Toth, P.C.J.

May 25, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was charged that he failed or refused to provide a breath sample, contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 1378

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Excuse for refusal to provide - The accused was charged that he failed or refused to provide a breath sample, contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code - The accused's first language was Spanish - The defence submitted that the accused's language barriers, combined with the information provided to him by the police and the terminology involved, created confusion and an understanding that he had an opportunity to speak to counsel before determining what he should do - The defence argued that the accused was left with the impression that he could contact counsel and then make a decision as to whether or not to blow into the approved screening device (ASD) - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty - There was little evidence that the accused's language barrier prevented him from understanding what was required of him - The court found that the accused, after being given a valid demand which he understood, intentionally failed to comply with the demand - The court was not persuaded that the officers misdirected the accused either intentionally or inadvertently - As such, the court did not find that there was a reasonable excuse - The court further stated that "it is not enough for an accused to state that they did not understand their rights to counsel when they were being arrested. For such a claim to succeed there must be more. Generally, the accused would need to tell the police that they do not understand, or their language barrier must be great enough that it is very clear to the police that more is needed. Neither is present in this case. As such, even had I found that the accused genuinely did believe that he was not required to obey the ASD demand, such an excuse would not have been reasonable under these circumstances".

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Lewko (G.L.) (2002), 227 Sask.R. 77; 287 W.A.C. 77; 2002 SKCA 121, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Lightfoot (A.) (2006), 410 A.R. 9; 2006 ABQB 735, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Bilawey (R.), [2008] 12 W.W.R. 472; 342 Sask.R. 1; 2008 SKQB 371, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Soucy (2014), 116 WCB (2d) 234; 2014 ONCJ 497, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Oliva Baca (D.), 2009 ONCJ 194, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Bleta (E.), [2012] O.T.C. Uned. 1235; 258 C.C.C.(3d) 261; 2012 ONSC 1235, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Deol, [2011] O.J. No 3274 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Boutin (B.), [2010] Sask.R. Uned. 62; 97 M.V.R.(5th) 135; 2010 SKPC 68, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Goleski (G.A.) (2015), 467 N.R. 1; 365 B.C.A.C. 1; 627 W.A.C. 1; 2015 SCC 6, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Grichko (2006), 70 W.C.B.(2d) 8; 2006 ONCJ 233, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Alilovic (D.), [2004] O.T.C. 243; 4 MVR(5th) 184, refd to. [para. 36].

Counsel:

Colton Fehr, for the Crown;

Sharon Fox, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Regina, Saskatchewan, before Toth, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 25, 2015.