R. v. Sandwith (T.A.), (2014) 437 Sask.R. 182 (PC)

• Judge: Benison, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: February 06, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 437 Sask.R. 182 (PC);2014 SKPC 27

R. v. Sandwith (T.A.) (2014), 437 Sask.R. 182 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.025

Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyler Alwyn Sandwith

(Information No. 24408525; 2014 SKPC 27)

Indexed As: R. v. Sandwith (T.A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Benison, P.C.J.

February 6, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused guilty.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The accused was charged with driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit - On the day in question, Cst. Lamontagne detained the accused after he had driven his vehicle into a driveway in Lampman - The defence argued that this constituted an arbitrary detention since the accused was on private property - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "the key to this fact situation is to determine where the accused's vehicle was at the time that the officer decided to initiate the stop and did take some action to initiate it. On my view of the evidence, Cst. Lamontagne had made the decision to check the vehicle pursuant to his powers under s. 209.1 of The Traffic Safety Act and had activated the police car lights while the vehicle was still on the street and was starting to turn into a driveway. The officer had clearly formulated a decision to stop the vehicle before it entered the driveway. It follows from this that the stop was authorized under s. 209.1 of The Traffic Safety Act and therefore was not arbitrary" - See paragraphs 3 to 4.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - The accused was charged with driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit - Kampman gave opinion evidence for the defence on the possible effects of radio frequency interference (RFI) on the Intox-EC/IRII instrument - Cst. Oram (the qualified technician who performed the tests) acknowledged that he was aware of a recommendation in the manual for the instrument that no transmitting devices be used during tests - However, Cst. Oram testified that a radio was transmitting to the patrol car while he was performing the breath tests - Kampman indicated that there were always concerns when radio transmission devices were used in proximity to breath testing instruments - In his opinion, one could not be sure that built-in safeguards would work and if the operator failed to follow recommended guidelines there was a potential to affect the results - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the defence had not raised doubt as to whether the Intox-EC/IRII was malfunctioning - Kampman's opinion was speculative and was not sufficient to constitute evidence to the contrary - The court also considered the testimony of Cst. Oram who obtained samples of breath from the accused without any indications that there were issues or problems with the instrument - Although Cst. Oram appeared to blatantly ignore a recommendation in the manual, the court did not interpret that to mean that he was operating the instrument improperly - There was no evidence that the instrument malfunctioned or was operated improperly - See paragraphs 6 to 20.

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.) (2012), 436 N.R. 199; 96 C.R.(6th) 221; 2012 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Crosthwait, [1981] S.C.R. 1089; 31 N.R. 603, refd to. [para. 18].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9 [para. 3].

Traffic Safety Act, S.S. 2004, c. T-18.1, sect. 209.1 [para. 4].

Counsel:

A. Davis, for the Crown;

L. Dunford, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Estevan, Saskatchewan, before Benison, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on February 6, 2014.