R. v. Saul (G.A.), (2015) 371 B.C.A.C. 9 (CA)

• Judge: Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
• Case Date: January 13, 2015
• Jurisdiction: British Columbia
• Citations: (2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 9 (CA);2015 BCCA 149

R. v. Saul (G.A.) (2015), 371 B.C.A.C. 9 (CA);

    636 W.A.C. 9

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] B.C.A.C. TBEd. AP.011

Regina (appellant) v. Garret Anthony Saul (respondent)

(CA041578; 2015 BCCA 149)

Indexed As: R. v. Saul (G.A.)

British Columbia Court of Appeal

Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A.

April 14, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was involved in a single motor vehicle accident. His vehicle went over an embankment, killing his passenger. The accused was charged with: (1) operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired and causing death (Criminal Code s. 255(3)); (ii) driving with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood and causing death (s. 255(3.1)); and (iii) operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public and causing death (s. 249(4)). With respect to the first two counts the Crown had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, and that he was operating a motor vehicle with a BAC over .08, respectively, at the time of the accident. The Crown could not rely on the presumption of identity in s. 258(1)(c) of the Code, which stipulated that the BAC at the time of testing (or the lowest of the results of multiple tests) was conclusive proof that the BAC at the time of the offence was the same, because more than two hours had passed between those two events. Without the benefit of the statutory presumption, the Crown had to tender expert opinion evidence to retroactively extrapolate the BAC readings from the time of the analysis to the time of driving. The therapeutic blood samples (taken more than two hours after the accident) established that the respondent's BAC was between 161 and 175 mgs% of alcohol - over twice the legal limit. The toxicologist extrapolated the BAC readings from the therapeutic samples (between 161-175 mgs%) to the time of the accident, and opined that the accused's readings at the time of the accident were between 183 and 219 mgs%. In doing so, she assumed the accused had consumed no alcohol in the 30 minutes before the accident (i.e., the "no bolus drinking" assumption). The trial judge found the Crown had failed to prove the expert's assumption of no bolus drinking beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore acquitted the accused all three counts. The Crown appealed.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The trial judge erred in finding that the Crown had failed to meet its burden to establish a factual foundation for the no bolus drinking assumption. That error resulted in the judge failing to give legal import to or weight to all of the relevant evidence on the ultimate issue. That was a material error of law. Had he properly considered that evidence, none of the verdicts would necessarily have been the same.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof (incl. expert evidence re bolus drinking) - See paragraphs 25 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. expert evidence re bolus drinking) - See paragraphs 25 to 69.

Criminal Law - Topic 1391.2

Motor vehicles - Dangerous driving - Causing death or bodily harm - See paragraphs 66 to 70.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. D.J.S. (2015), 370 B.C.A.C. 57; 635 W.A.C. 57; 2015 BCCA 111, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Muir (J.S.) (2003), 177 B.C.A.C. 246; 291 W.A.C. 246; 2003 BCCA 66, refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. J.S.M. - see R. v. Muir (J.S.).

R. v. J.M.H., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. St-Onge Lamoureux (A.) (2012), 436 N.R. 199; 2012 SCC 57, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Hall (S.) (2007), 219 O.A.C. 251; 2007 ONCA 8, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Paszczenko (M.) et al. (2010), 272 O.A.C. 27; 2010 ONCA 615, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Truong (C.) (2010), 296 B.C.A.C. 248; 503 W.A.C. 248; 2010 BCCA 536, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Flight (R.I.) (2014), 575 A.R. 297; 612 W.A.C. 297; 2014 ABCA 185, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Phillips (1988), 27 O.A.C. 380; 42 C.C.C.(3d) 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Mohan, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 9; 166 N.R. 245; 71 O.A.C. 241, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Gibson (R.A.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 397; 373 N.R. 1; 429 A.R. 327; 421 W.A.C. 327; 264 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 847 A.P.R. 331; 2008 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 286; 142 N.R. 141; 131 A.R. 81; 25 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Lavallee, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 852; 108 N.R. 321; 67 Man.R.(2d) 1, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Dean (1992), 127 A.R. 376; 20 W.A.C. 376; 2 Alta. L.R.(3d) 153 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 34].

R. v. Grosse (P.) (1996), 91 O.A.C. 40; 29 O.R.(3d) 785 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. McLean (P.S.) (2010), 290 B.C.A.C. 75; 491 W.A.C. 75; 2010 BCCA 341, refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Quiring, [1998] B.C.J. No. 2631 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Lardner (A.P.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. D79, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Stinn, [2003] B.C.J. No. 1665 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Trenaman (A.T.), [2012] B.C.T.C. Uned. 1333; 2012 BCSC 1333, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. McLean, [2010] B.C.J. No. 1210, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Beatty (J.R.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49; 371 N.R. 119; 251 B.C.A.C. 7; 420 W.A.C. 7; 2008 SCC 5, refd to. [para. 67].

R. v. Roy (R.L.), [2012] 2 S.C.R. 60; 430 N.R. 201; 321 B.C.A.C. 112; 547 W.A.C. 112; 2012 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 68].

R. v. Settle (B.K.) (2010), 293 B.C.A.C. 258; 496 W.A.C. 258; 2010 BCCA 426, refd to. [para. 69].

Counsel:

P.A. Juk, Q.C., and L. Pearce, for the appellant;

E.V. Gottardi and A. Cheon-Hayes, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard in Vancouver, B.C., on January 13, 2015, before Newbury, D. Smith and Stromberg-Stein, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by D. Smith, J.A., on April 14, 2015.