R. v. Sekhon (M.S.), 2004 ABQB 358

• Judge: Veit, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 2004
• Citations: 2004 ABQB 358;(2004), 358 A.R. 297 (QB)

R. v. Sekhon (M.S.) (2004), 358 A.R. 297 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] A.R. TBEd. MY.107

Her Majesty the Queen (applicant) v. Manjit Singh Sekhon (respondent)

(03113277S1; 2004 ABQB 358)

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

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Veit, J.

May 6, 2004.

Summary:

The Crown appealed from the accused's acquittals on charges of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1369

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - General - A vehicle collided with a traffic sign suffering some damage -Witnesses identified the accused as being in the driver's seat at some point after the accident - The accused was charged and acquitted of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having an excessive blood-alcohol level - The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider the included offence of care and control and misapplied the test for being in care and control of a vehicle - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The trial judge erred in stating that one of the elements of the offence of care and control was the intention of driving - However, in light of the absence of evidence that there was a risk that the vehicle could be put in motion, and in light of the evidence that the accused unsuccessfully tried on several occasions to move the vehicle, the trial judge's failure to address the included offence of impaired care and control did not constitute a substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Drolet, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1107; 138 N.R. 305; 55 Q.A.C. 59, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Shepard, [1991] A.J. No. 437, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Whyte, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 3; 86 N.R. 328, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Ford, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 231; 40 N.R. 451; 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 254; 101 A.P.R. 254; 65 C.C.C.(2d) 392, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Knudson (L.A.) (2002), 316 A.R. 209; 2002 ABPC 16, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Fargey (M.B.), [2003] A.R. Uned. 576 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Gent (M.C.), [1997] A.R. Uned. 11 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Gerrard (D.S.) (2000), 275 A.R. 122; 2000 ABPC 182, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Madden (T.) (2001), 288 A.R. 34 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Morin, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 345; 88 N.R. 161; 30 O.A.C. 81; 4 C.C.C.(3d) 193; 66 C.R.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Campbell (W.S.) (1991), 87 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 269; 271 A.P.R. 269; 26 M.V.R.(2d) 319 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Stellato (T.) (1993), 61 O.A.C. 217; 78 C.C.C.(3d) 380 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].

R. v. Anthes Business Forms Ltd. (1975), 26 C.C.C.(2d) 349 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. D.W., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742; 122 N.R. 277; 46 O.A.C. 352; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 397; 3 C.R.(4th) 302, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Rice (D.J.), [2004] A.R. Uned. 17; 2004 ABQB 13, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 9].

Counsel:

Robert A. Fata, Crown Prosecutor, for the appellant;

Douglas MacEachern, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on April 15, 2004, before Veit, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following memorandum of decision on May 6, 2004.