R. v. Shuparski (D.), (2001) 206 Sask.R. 299 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Snell, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 02, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2001), 206 Sask.R. 299 (ProvCt)

R. v. Shuparski (D.) (2001), 206 Sask.R. 299 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. AP.037

Her Majesty The Queen v. Darren Shuparski

(Information No. 24030324)

Indexed As: R. v. Shuparski (D.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Snell, P.C.J.

April 2, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving with an excessive blood alcohol level and having care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by alcohol.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court ac­quitted the accused of both offences.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1

Right to counsel - General - Advice of - Understanding of - The police found the accused asleep in his car and woke him up - Soon after, he was charged with impaired driving offences and given his right to counsel - The accused had no memory of having been advised of his right to counsel - He argued that he was not in sufficient possession of his faculties to receive the informational component of his right to counsel and, given the officer's own de­scription of the accused's condition, he should have been aware of that - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court rejected the argument - Despite the fact that the ac­cused showed signs of impairment, and momentary disorientation on being awak­ened, in the absence of any reason for the police officer to believe the accused could not understand the information being given to him, he was not required to do more than he did - See paragraph 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - An accused testified that, as a result of fatigue and the alcohol he had consumed, he did not feel capable of driving home safely - He pulled over, shut off the car, locked the doors, put the keys on the seat beside him, reclined his seat, fell asleep and was awakened by the police - He intended to continue on to his residence later - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court reluctantly held that it was bound by R. v. Sherbrook (T.J.) (Sask. Q.B.) and acquitted the accused of having care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate it was impaired by alcohol - The accused had abandoned his original purpose for occupying the driver's seat and did not have actual care and control - See para­graphs 18 to 47.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sherbrook (T.J.) (1998), 164 Sask.R. 183 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 2, 18].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161; 92 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 33 C.R.(4th) 1, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Evans (W.G.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 869; 124 N.R. 278; 63 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 4 C.R.(4th) 144, red to. [para. 10].

R. v. McAvena (1987), 55 Sask.R. 161 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Madraga (G.A.) (2001), 203 Sask.R. 78; 240 W.A.C. 78 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 160, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Pelletier (1989), 79 Sask.R. 22; 51 C.C.C.(3d) 161 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Penno, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 865; 115 N.R. 249; 42 O.A.C. 271, refd to. [para. 20].

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. 20].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349; 47 C.R.(3d) 213, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Martindale (1995), 45 C.R.(4th) 111 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Baldwin, [1998] S.J. No. 418 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Barber, [1998] S.J. No. 708 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Bird, [1999] S.J. No. 410 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Debnam, [1998] S.J. No. 399 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Grover (J.R.) (2000), 276 A.R. 77 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Bender (R.E.) (2000), 200 Sask.R. 197 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Sellars, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 527; 32 N.R. 70; 110 D.L.R.(3d) 629; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 345, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Wolverine and Bernard (1987), 59 Sask.R. 22 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Koziolek (H.) (1999), 92 O.T.C. 188 (Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 24].

R. v. Ingram (1981), 12 Sask.R. 242 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Johnson, [1986] S.J. No. 522 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 28].

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, refd to. [para. 29].

R. v. Hatfield (D.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 316; 33 O.R.(3d) 350 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Price (1978), 21 N.B.R.(2d) 532; 37 A.P.R. 532; 2 C.R.(3d) 277; 40 C.C.C.(2d) 378 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 36].

R. v. Diotte (1991), 115 N.B.R.(2d) 195; 291 A.P.R. 195; 28 M.V.R.(2d) 177 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Clarke (P.) (1997), 188 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 480 A.P.R. 123; 27 M.V.R.(3d) 91 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Gent (M.C.) [1997] A.R. Uned. 11; 30 M.V.R.(3d) 318 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Brown, [1999] S.J. No. 856 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Ganpatt (D.) (1995), 177 A.R. 311 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v Pilon (L.H.) (1998), 115 O.A.C. 324 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Pelletier (S.), [2000] O.A.C. Uned. 355 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Lockerby (B.) (1999), 180 N.S.R.(2d) 115; 557 A.P.R. 115; 139 C.C.C.(3d) 314 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Rioux (2000), 148 C.C.C.(3d) 160 (Que. C.A.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22, refd to. [para. 43].

R. v. Konkolus (1988), 86 A.R. 144; 6 M.V.R.(2d) 220 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

R. v. Hudson (1989), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 284 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Hatfield (D.) (1997), 98 O.A.C. 316; 115 C.C.C.(3d) 47 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. George (A.) (1994), 120 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 237; 373 A.P.R. 237; 90 C.C.C.(3d) 502 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. McKenzie (P.N.) (1996), 141 Sask.R. 221; 114 W.A.C. 221 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

Counsel:

J.S. Stoesser, for the Crown;

Kevin A. Lang, for the accused.

This matter was heard before Snell, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 2, 2001.