R. v. Sanche (W.), (2003) 334 A.R. 39 (PC)

• Judge: Allen, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: January 28, 2003
• Citations: (2003), 334 A.R. 39 (PC);2003 ABPC 4

R. v. Sanche (W.) (2003), 334 A.R. 39 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] A.R. TBEd. FE.028

Her Majesty the Queen v. Wayne Sanche

(017081126P1; 2003 ABPC 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Sanche (W.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Allen, P.C.J.

January 28, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was involved in a motor vehicle accident. He was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. The accused alleged that: (1) his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by the arresting officer's failure to provide him with a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel; and (2) the officer did not have reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand and therefore the taking of breath samples infringed the accused's s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable seizure. The accused submitted that evidence relating to the breath samples should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. In a prior voir dire, the court had held that the officer infringed the ac­cused's s. 10(b) rights by questioning the accused when he was in the ambulance and by listening to the ambulance attendant's questioning of the accused. On the present voir dire, the court also had to determine whether that s. 10(b) infringement would require the exclusion of the breath samples pursuant to s. 24(2).

The Alberta Provincial Court held that: (1) the police officer had reasonable and prob­able grounds to make the breathalyzer demand and the accused's s. 8 rights were not infringed; (2) the accused was given a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and there was no breach of his s. 10(b) rights in that respect; and (3) despite the breach of s. 10(b) by the investigating offic­er's failure to hold off in questioning the accused in the ambulance, the evidence of the breath samples was not obtained in a manner that denied the accused's Charter rights and admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Civil Rights - Topic 4605

Right to counsel - Denial of - Due to lack of time or opportunity - Following a motor vehicle accident, a police officer arrested the accused for impaired driving and gave him a Charter warning - The accused responded "Then give me a phone I want to call my parents" - The officer had a cellular phone, but did not make it avail­able - The accused was taken to hospital and was treated and released to the officer - The officer made a breathalyzer demand and transported the accused to the police station where he was given access to a phone to contact counsel - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the accused was afforded a reasonable opportunity to con­sult counsel - The access to counsel was initially limited by the urgency of medical treatment and the officer did not have full control of the accused until his treatment was completed - Had access to counsel been granted in the ambulance, the accused would have been provided no privacy - The officer did not know that the hospital was able to provide a phone - The police station allowed the accused access to free legal advice and he did not indicate that he needed further time to find or consult counsel - See paragraphs 74 to 96.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - Right to be advised of - Following a motor vehicle accident, a police officer arrested the accused for impaired driving and gave him a Charter warning - The accused was taken to the hospital and was treated and released to the officer - The officer made a breathalyzer demand and transported the accused to the police station where he was given access to a phone to contact counsel - The accused argued that the officer was required to reiterate the Charter caution at the time of the demand because of the passage of time, the accused's head injuries, and the change in the nature of the detention - The Alberta Provincial Court rejected the argument - The accused was properly informed of his s. 10(b) rights upon his arrest and he had sufficient cognitive ability to comprehend the Charter warning - While there was a delay between the Charter caution and the demand for breath samples, the Charter warning was sufficiently factually con­nected to the reason for detention and the accused's jeopardy remained the same throughout - The time delay was not suffi­cient to require the caution to be reiterated - See paragraphs 62 to 73.

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4605 and Civil Rights - Topic 4608 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - Following a motor vehicle accident, a police officer arrested the accused for impaired driving and gave him a Charter warning - The accused responded "Then give me a phone I want to call my parents" - The accused was taken to hospi­tal by ambulance and was treated and released to the officer - The officer made a breathalyzer demand and transported the accused to the police station where he was given access to a phone to contact counsel - The accused then provided breath samples - The Alberta Provincial Court held that the officer infringed the accused's s. 10(b) rights by questioning the accused in the ambulance and by listening to the ambulance attendant's questioning of the accused - However, the evidence of the breath samples was not obtained in a man­ner that denied the accused's Charter rights where the causal connection between the infringement and the obtaining of the breath samples was too remote - The court concluded that admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the ad­ministration of justice into disrepute - See paragraphs 98 to 125.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The accused argued that the arrest­ing officer did not have reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand and that the taking of breath samples therefore infringed his s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable seizure - The Alberta Provincial Court stated that in reviewing the officer's reasonable and probable grounds from an objective viewpoint in a s. 8 Charter application, the judge might have to excise certain aspects of the evi­dence known to the police officer - All factually erroneous material had to be deleted and the judge could not consider evidence which was obtained by unreason­able means or in a manner contrary to the Charter - Once the tainted portions were removed, if there was sufficient reliable evidence to support reasonable and prob­able grounds based upon the knowledge of the police at the time of forming those grounds, then the grounds should be upheld - See paragraphs 52 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - A motor vehicle collided with a house - Witnesses told a police officer that the accused had been driving and appeared to have been drinking alcohol - The accused had injuries to his nose and face and his vehicle had a star pattern which was consistent with his head hitting the windshield - The accused had bloodshot, glassy eyes, and a moderate to strong odour of alcohol - He was loud and aggressive - He admitted to consuming seven or eight beers, but he exhibited no coordination problems or difficulty with comprehension - He was treated by medi­cal staff and the attending physician said that he was "O.K." - The Alberta Provin­cial Court held that while the accused did not exhibit lack of coordination and some of his symptoms might have been related to head injuries, an objective observer in the position of the police officer would have been able to conclude that he had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand - See paragraphs 57 to 60.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Broyles, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 595; 131 N.R. 118; 120 A.R. 189; 8 W.A.C. 189; 68 C.C.C.(3d) 308; 9 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Colarusso, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 20; 162 N.R. 321; 69 O.A.C. 81; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. M.R.M., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 393; 233 N.R. 1; 171 N.S.R.(2d) 125; 519 A.P.R. 125, dist. [para. 7].

R. v. MacLeod (M.W.) (2001), 283 A.R. 218 (Prov. Ct.), consd. [para. 26].

R. v. Rilling, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183; 5 N.R. 327, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417; 89 N.R. 249; 73 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 13; 229 A.P.R. 13; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 244; 10 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 66 C.R.(3d) 348; 55 D.L.R.(4th) 503, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Pohoretsky, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 945; 75 N.R. 1; 47 Man.R.(2d) 295; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 398, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Dersch (W.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 768; 158 N.R. 375; 33 B.C.A.C. 269; 54 W.A.C. 269; 85 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 28].

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; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Simmons, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 495; 89 N.R. 1; 30 O.A.C. 241; 66 C.R.(3d) 297; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 296, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Collins, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 265; 74 N.R. 276; 56 C.R.(3d) 193; [1987] 3 W.W.R. 699; 38 D.L.R.(4th) 508; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 30].

Baron et al. v. Minister of National Rev­enue, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 416; 146 N.R. 270; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 510; 18 C.R.(4th) 374, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Yurechuk, [1983] 1 W.W.R. 460; 42 A.R. 176 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Musurichan (1990), 107 A.R. 102; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 570 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Hitchner (1989), 92 A.R. 395 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Rowland (1990), 113 A.R. 238; 14 M.V.R.(2d) 261 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161; 75 C.R.(3d) 1; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 316, refd to. [para. 36].

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; 8 M.V.R.(3d) 75, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Huddle (1990), 102 A.R. 144; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. McClelland (B.L.) (1995), 165 A.R. 332; 89 W.A.C. 332; 98 C.C.C.(3d) 509 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Golub (D.J.) (1997), 102 O.A.C. 176; 117 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 41].

Dix v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2002), 315 A.R. 1 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 42].

Newfoundland (Royal Newfoundland Con­stabulary) v. Newfoundland (Royal New­foundland Constabulary Public Com­plaints Commissioner), [2002] N.J. No. 203 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 42].

R. v. Ernst (1991), 3 B.C.A.C. 219; 7 W.A.C. 219; 31 M.V.R.(2d) 26 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Thandi (C.S.), [1998] B.C.A.C. Uned. 191; 39 M.V.R.(3d) 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Saulnier (1990), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Garofoli et al., [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421; 116 N.R. 241; 43 O.A.C. 1; 36 Q.A.C. 161; 60 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Grant (D.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 223; 159 N.R. 161; 35 B.C.A.C. 1; 57 W.A.C. 1 ; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 173, refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Araujo (A.) et al. (2000), 262 N.R. 346; 143 B.C.A.C. 257; 235 W.A.C. 257; 149 C.C.C.(3d) 449 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Wiley (R.W.), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 263; 158 N.R. 321; 34 B.C.A.C. 135; 56 W.A.C. 135; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 161, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Bisson (J.) et autres, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 1097; 173 N.R. 237; 65 Q.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 54].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Schmautz, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 398; 106 N.R. 81; 20 M.V.R.(2d) 1; 75 C.R.(3d) 129; 44 B.C.L.R.(2d) 273; [1990] 3 W.W.R. 193; 53 C.C.C.(3d) 556; 45 C.R.R. 245, refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Anderson (1984), 2 O.A.C. 258; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 417; 9 C.R.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81; 37 C.C.C.(3d) 181; 61 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Vanstaceghem (1987), 21 O.A.C. 210; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

R. v. Mohl (1987), 55 Sask.R. 22; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 435 (C.A.), revsd. (1989), 95 N.R. 381; 77 Sask.R. 35; 47 C.C.C.(3d) 575 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. McAvena (1987), 55 Sask.R. 161; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 461 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Cotter (1991), 62 C.C.C.(3d) 423 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 207; 50 C.R.(3d) 289; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 493; 19 C.R.R. 209, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Whittle (D.J.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 914; 170 N.R. 16; 73 O.A.C. 201; 116 D.L.R.(4th) 416; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 11; 32 C.R.(4th) 1; 23 C.R.R.(2d) 6, refd to. [para. 70].

R. v. Purdon (1989), 100 A.R. 313; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 270 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Logan, Logan and Johnson (1988), 30 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 354 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. MacDonald (T.F.) (1986), 73 N.S.R.(2d) 303; 176 A.P.R. 303; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 572, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Black, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 138; 98 N.R. 281; 93 N.S.R.(2d) 35; 242 A.P.R. 35; 50 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Smith (N.M.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 714; 122 N.R. 203; 104 N.S.R.(2d) 233; 283 A.P.R. 233; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 313; 4 C.R.(4th) 125; 3 C.R.R.(2d) 370, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Paternak (C.D.), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 607; 203 N.R. 250; 187 A.R. 395; 127 W.A.C. 395; 110 C.C.C.(3d) 382, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Debot, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1140; 102 N.R. 161; 37 O.A.C. 1; 52 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Feeney (M.), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 13; 212 N.R. 83; 91 B.C.A.C. 1; 148 W.A.C. 1; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 78].

R. v. LePage (1987), 75 N.S.R.(2d) 322; 186 A.P.R. 322; 32 C.C.C.(3d) 171 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Young (1988), 81 N.B.R.(2d) 233; 205 A.P.R. 233; 38 C.C.C.(3d) 452 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Playford (1987), 24 O.A.C. 161; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 142 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Standish (1988), 41 C.C.C.(3d) 340 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 82].

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192; 58 C.R.(3d) 97; 34 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 41 D.L.R.(4th) 301, refd to. [para. 87].

R. v. Strachan, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 980; 90 N.R. 273; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 479; 67 C.R.(3d) 87; 56 D.L.R.(4th) 673; 37 C.R.R. 335; [1989] 1 W.W.R. 385, refd to. [para. 89].

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321; 46 C.C.C.(3d) 129, refd to. [para. 90].

R. v. Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236; 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 353, refd to. [para. 91].

R. v. Top (1989), 95 A.R. 195; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 493 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 92].

R. v. Liew (K.L.) (1998), 212 A.R. 381; 168 W.A.C. 381; 124 C.C.C.(3d) 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 93].

R. v. Maloney (D.F.) (1995), 147 N.S.R.(2d) 139; 426 A.P.R. 139; 18 M.V.R.(3d) 275 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Lawday (C.J.) (1996), 194 A.R. 231 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Gladue (V.L.) (1999), 239 A.R. 386 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 94].

R. v. Whitford (B.E.) (1997), 196 A.R. 97; 141 W.A.C. 97; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 52 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 95].

R. v. Greig (1990), 103 A.R. 385; 54 C.C.C.(3d) 84; 49 C.R.R. 235 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 99].

R. v. L.R.I. and E.T., [1993] 4 S.C.R. 504; 159 N.R. 363; 37 B.C.A.C. 48; 60 W.A.C. 48; 26 C.R.(4th) 119; 109 D.L.R.(4th) 140; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 19 C.R.R.(2d) 156, refd to. [para. 100].

R. v. Goldhart (W.), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 463; 198 N.R. 321; 92 O.A.C. 161; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 103].

R. v. Genaille (G.T.) (1997), 118 Man.R.(2d) 114; 149 W.A.C. 114; 116 C.C.C.(3d) 459 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 104].

R. v. B.G. (1999), 240 N.R. 260; 174 D.L.R.(4th) 301; 135 C.C.C.(3d) 303 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 105].

R. v. Ricketts (D.) (2000), 131 O.A.C. 195; 144 C.C.C.(3d) 152 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 106].

R. v. Jacoy, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 548; 89 N.R. 61; 45 C.C.C.(3d) 46, refd to. [para. 111].

R. v. Cobham, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 360; 172 N.R. 123; 157 A.R. 81; 77 W.A.C. 81; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 333, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Pozniak (W.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 310; 172 N.R. 72; 74 O.A.C. 232; 33 C.R.(4th) 49; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 472; 6 M.V.R.(3d) 113; 118 D.L.R.(4th) 205; 23 C.R.R.(2d) 303, refd to. [para. 113].

R. v. Kokesch (1990), 121 N.R. 161; 61 C.C.C.(3d) 207 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 122].

R. v. Ellis (S.R.) (2001), 314 A.R. 84; 14 M.V.R.(4th) 235 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 124].

Counsel:

K. Goddard, for the Crown;

T. Engel, for the accused.

This voir dire was heard before Allen, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on January 28, 2003.