R. v. Schell (J.J.), 2011 SKPC 3

• Judge: Kolenick, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 11, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2011 SKPC 3;(2011), 388 Sask.R. 1 (PC)

R. v. Schell (J.J.) (2011), 388 Sask.R. 1 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.088

Her Majesty the Queen v. Jesse J. Schell

(Information No. 32417088; 2011 SKPC 3)

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

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Kolenick, P.C.J.

January 11, 2011.

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 dismissed the application.

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - 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 dismissed the application - The accused was not credible in suggesting in hindsight that he had wanted to consider his options for counsel of choice and had not been permitted sufficient time to do so - Rather, he had been entirely disinterested in consulting with counsel - At the scene of the roadside check stop, his response to the offer of counsel was "nah, fuck it" - At the police services building, when the issue of counsel was raised again, the accused's reply was "I don't see why", "I already admitted to pounding four back", "I know I screwed up" and "why do I need one?" - In those circumstances, it was entirely appropriate for the officer to contact legal aid duty counsel with the accused's consent - The officers were alive to the possibility of stopping the investigation if the accused expressed dissatisfaction with the process of exercising his right to counsel - Nothing of that nature was disclosed to the police, despite the accused being otherwise rational and coherent - The accused was clear and unequivocal in his waiver of right to counsel - Alternatively, the accused had failed to indicate a desire to exercise his right to counsel - See paragraphs 37 and 38.

Civil Rights - Topic 4609.1

Right to counsel - General - Duty of police investigators (incl. undercover officers) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - General - Waiver or abandonment of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.4

Right to counsel - General - Duty of accused to act diligently - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4620.6

Right to counsel - General - Right to counsel of choice - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Manninen, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1233; 76 N.R. 198; 21 O.A.C. 192, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. LaPlante (1987), 59 Sask.R. 251 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Barbon (1986), 55 C.R.(3d) 89 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Gilbert (1988), 24 O.A.C. 150 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Clarkson, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 383; 66 N.R. 114; 69 N.B.R.(2d) 40; 177 A.P.R. 40, refd to. [para. 28].

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, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Czorny (W.) (1996), 15 O.T.C. 111 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Meston (G.) (1995), 175 A.R. 161 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Marion, [1999] S.J. No. 918 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Wingerter (B.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 48 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. McDonald (W.) (2001), 224 Sask.R. 235 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Waskewitch (V.) (2001), 208 Sask.R. 71 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Niles (W.N.) (2000), 191 Sask.R. 94 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Cohoon, [2001] S.J. No. 696 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. MacLaren (H.K.) (2001), 212 Sask.R. 204 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Jacobs, [2002] B.C.J. No. 1358, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Ryland (C.) (2006), 277 Sask.R. 7 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Erickson (L.D.) (2010), 353 Sask.R. 132 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Jacobi (M.) (2006), 290 Sask.R. 176 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. D.P.W. (2008), 319 Sask.R. 247 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. George (E.) (2010), 355 Sask.R. 99 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Epp (C.) (2010), 363 Sask.R. 111; 2010 SKPC 89, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. McCrimmon (D.R.) (2010), 406 N.R. 152; 293 B.C.A.C. 144; 496 W.A.C. 144 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Willier (S.J.) (2010), 406 N.R. 218; 490 A.R. 1; 497 W.A.C. 1; 2010 SCC 37, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Edgington (K.J.) (2010), 367 Sask.R. 44; 2010 SKQB 381, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. M.D.W. (2001), 214 Sask.R. 297; 2001 SKQB 566, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Baig, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 537; 81 N.R. 87; 25 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Turenne, 2002 SKPC 39, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Sielski (J.) (2007), 306 Sask.R. 174; 2007 SKPC 119, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Ogrodnick (C.) (2006), 393 A.R. 6; 2006 ABQB 91, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Richard (A.) (2010), 352 Sask.R. 263 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 34].

Counsel:

Cory Bliss, for the Crown;

Michael W. Owens, for the accused.

This application was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, by Kolenick, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following interim ruling on January 11, 2011.