R. v. Saroya (M.S.), (2004) 386 A.R. 195 (QB)

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: November 18, 2004
• Citations: (2004), 386 A.R. 195 (QB);2004 ABQB 850

R. v. Saroya (M.S.) (2004), 386 A.R. 195 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. NO.111

Her Majesty the Queen v. Manjit Singh Saroya (appellant)

(030871545S101001; 2004 ABQB 850)

Indexed As: R. v. Saroya (M.S.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

November 18, 2004.

Summary:

The accused appealed from his conviction for impaired driving.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

Courts - Topic 583

Judges - Duties - Re reasons for decisions - [See Criminal Law - Topic 4684 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - The accused appealed from his conviction for impaired driving - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial - The trial judge's failure to give reasons why the evidence of some trial witnesses was preferred to that of other witnesses on the topic of impairment prevented both the accused and the court from discerning why the accused was convicted - The court stated that "While the failure to give reasons is not a freestanding ground of appeal, in a situation such as this one where there was independent evidence both of injury at the time when observations were made and of behaviour that was either not clearly attributable to impairment or that was equivocal on the issue of whether the behaviour was attributable to the effects of the injury or to impairment, the trial judge was required to give reasons for rejecting exculpatory evidence" - The failure to give meaningful reasons was an error of law within the meaning of s. 686(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 104 C.C.C.(3d) 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Lochan (1990), 108 A.R. 241 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Landes (T.) (1997), 161 Sask.R. 305 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Filipovic (V.) (2004), 366 A.R. 261; 2004 ABPC 119, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Franklin (W.T.) (1997), 221 A.R. 356 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Atfield (1983), 42 A.R. 294 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Sophonow (1985), 38 Man.R.(2d) 198; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 415 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Brown (E.) (2002), 165 O.A.C. 36; 61 O.R.(3d) 619 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Sekhon (M.S.) (2004), 358 A.R. 297; 2004 ABQB 358, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Leeming (J.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 544; 2004 ABQB 578, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Hamstra (J.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 183; 2004 ABQB 156, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. Campbell (W.S.) (1991), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 271 A.P.R. 269; 26 M.V.R.(2d) 319 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al. (2002), 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Huddle (1989), 102 A.R. 144 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Power (K.M.) (2002), 311 A.R. 27 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. David (D.) (2002), 164 O.A.C. 61; 61 O.R.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Janzen (M.W.) (1998), 228 A.R. 12; 188 W.A.C. 12 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. White (J.K.), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 417; 240 N.R. 1; 123 B.C.A.C. 161; 201 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Kerich (P.) (2002), 326 A.R. 272 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Corbett, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 275; 1 N.R. 258; 14 C.C.C.(2d) 385, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Johnson (P.D.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 189; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mastin (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Sheppard (C.) (2002), 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 162 C.C.C.(3d) 298 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Braich (A.) et al., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 903; 285 N.R. 162; 164 B.C.A.C. 1; 268 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. I.B.H., [1995] A.J. No. 1164 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Greenhow (S.) (2004), 348 A.R. 392; 321 W.A.C. 392 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Mitchell (W.F.) (1994), 162 A.R. 109; 83 W.A.C. 109 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 5].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Manitoba, Department of Justice, The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow: The Investigation, Prosecution and Consideration of Entitlement to Compensation (Sophonow Report) (2001), generally [para. 4].

Sophonow Report - see Manitoba, Department of Justice, The Inquiry Regarding Thomas Sophonow: The Investigation, Prosecution and Consideration of Entitlement to Compensation.

Counsel:

Sid M. Tarrabain, Q.C. (Tarrabain O'Byrne & Company), for the appellant;

Anne Schute (Alberta Justice), for the Crown/respondent.

This appeal was heard on August 26 and September 9 and 10, 2004, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on November 18, 2004.