R. v. Schell (J.J.), 2012 SKPC 4

Judge:Kolenick, P.C.J.
Court:Provincial Court of Saskatchewan
Case Date:February 07, 2012
Jurisdiction:Saskatchewan
Citations:2012 SKPC 4;(2012), 388 Sask.R. 15 (PC)
 
FREE EXCERPT

R. v. Schell (J.J.) (2012), 388 Sask.R. 15 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.018

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jesse Schell (No. 2)

(Information No. 32417088; 2012 SKPC 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Schell (J.J.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kolenick, P.C.J.

February 7, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. He sought exclusion of the certificate of breath analyses under s. 24(2) of the Charter, asserting that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) had been breached.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at 388 Sask.R. 1, dismissed the application. The trial proceeded.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty.

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 having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The certificate of analyses stated that the first sample "was taken as 2331 hours ..." and that the second sample "was taken at 2354 hours" - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - The Crown's witnesses had not offered any explanation as to how the handwritten four digit numbers, without colons, periods or decimals, could be relied on to prove "standard time" as contemplated in the Interpretation Act - Without that nature of explanation and clarification from the Crown, it was not appropriate for the court to speculate - Therefore, the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that there was an interval of at least 15 minutes between the samples - See paragraphs 20 and 21.

Time - Topic 400

Divisions or standards - General - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1374 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dol, [1999] O.J. No. 1832 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 5].

R. v. Bernier (1977), 31 N.B.R.(2d) 476; 75 A.P.R. 476; 1977 CarswellNB 355 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Carrie, 1997 CarswellOnt 3587 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Cardinal (S.R.) (2001), 301 A.R. 1; 2001 CarswellAlta 1427 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Michel (J.) (2011), 383 Sask.R. 140; 2011 SKQB 356, consd. [para. 15].

Counsel:

Cory Bliss, for the Crown;

Michael Owens, for the accused.

This case was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 7, 2012.

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP