R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), (1992) 58 O.A.C. 47 (CA)

• Judge: Grange, Galligan and Arbour, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: June 04, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1992), 58 O.A.C. 47 (CA)

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.) (1992), 58 O.A.C. 47 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen (applicant/appellant) v. Gail Roberta St. Pierre (respondent)

(C 8170)

Indexed As: R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.)

Ontario Court of Appeal

Grange, Galligan and Arbour, JJ.A.

September 10, 1992.

Summary:

The accused driver was stopped by the police because of her erratic driving. She took an A.L.E.R.T. test and failed. The police took her to the police station for a breathalyzer test. Before taking the test the accused drank two vodka miniatures (50 ml. bottles). The breathalyzer results showed an excessive blood-alcohol content. At trial the Crown relied upon certificate evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test. The Crown relied on the presumption in s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and the accused alleged that the consumption of the vodka was "evidence to the contrary".

The trial judge found that the presumption did not apply and acquitted the accused. The Crown appealed.

The appeal court judge dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal, Arbour, J.A., dissenting, allowed the appeal and convicted the accused of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence - Presumption of blood-alcohol content at time of alleged offence (Criminal Code, s. 258(1)(c)) - Evidence to the contrary, what constitutes - A driver was taken to the police station for a breathalyzer test - Before taking the test the driver drank some vodka - At trial the Crown relied upon the presumption in s. 258(1)(c) and the driver alleged that the consumption of the vodka was "evidence to the contrary" -The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the consumption of the vodka was not "evi­dence to the contrary" because it did not tend to show that at the time of the alleged offence the driver's blood-alcohol level was within the lawful limit - See para­graphs 36 to 37.

Words and Phrases

Evidence to the contrary - The Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the meaning of the phrase "evidence to the contrary" as found in s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Moreau (1978), 23 N.R. 541; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 525 (S.C.C.), refd to [paras. 12, 62].

R. v. Gibson (1992), 100 Sask.R. 88; 18 W.A.C. 88; 72 C.C.C.(3d) 28, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Crosthwait, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1089; 31 N.R. 603; 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 509; 68 A.P.R. 509; 52 C.C.C.(2d) 129, refd to. [paras. 18, 56].

R. v. White (1986), 60 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 70; 181 A.P.R. 70; 41 M.V.R. 82 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 22, 63].

R. v. Creed (1987), 67 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 249; 206 A.P.R. 249; 7 M.V.R.(2d) 184 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [paras. 23, 63].

R. v. Kays (1987), 82 N.S.R.(2d) 18; 207 A.P.R. 18; 3 M.V.R.(2d) 209 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 63].

R. v. DeEll (1988), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 90; 210 A.P.R. 90; 5 M.V.R.(2d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. MacDonald (1988), 83 N.S.R.(2d) 293; 210 A.P.R. 293; 5 M.V.R.(2d) 187 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 25, 63].

R. v. Marcelli (1990), 95 N.S.R.(2d) 87; 251 A.P.R. 87; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 112 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Gallagher (1981), 64 C.C.C.(2d) 533; 37 N.B.R.(2d) 534; 148 A.P.R. 534 (C.A.), folld. [paras. 26, 63].

R. v. Dubois (1990), 37 Q.A.C. 75; 62 C.C.C.(3d) 90 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 27, 62].

R. v. Green (1987), 12 M.V.R.(2d) 195 (Ont. D.C.), refd to. [paras. 28, 63].

R. v. Yonkheym (1982), 30 C.R.(3d) 27 (Ont. Co. Ct.), folld. [paras. 28, 63].

R. v. Madden (1981), 13 M.V.R. 44; 14 Man.R.(2d) 124 (Co. Ct.), folld. [para. 29].

R. v. Roer (1988), 56 Man.R.(2d) 69 (Q.B.), folld. [para. 29].

R. v. Batley (1985), 39 Sask.R. 259; 32 M.V.R. 257 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 30, 63].

R. v. Kucher (1979), 16 A.R. 494; 48 C.C.C.(2d) 115 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 32, 62].

R. v. Hughes (1982), 38 A.R. 276; 70 C.C.C.(2d) 42 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Kizan (1981), 58 C.C.C.(2d) 444 (B.C.C.A.), not folld. [paras. 33, 63].

R. v. Davis (1973), 14 C.C.C.(2d) 513 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Carter (1985), 7 O.A.C. 344; 19 C.C.C.(3d) 174 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Benson (1980), 7 M.V.R. 95 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Davidson (1990), 24 M.V.R.(2d) 170 (Ont. Gen. Div.), refd to. [para. 62].

R. v. Mitchell (1987), 64 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 165; 197 A.P.R. 165; 1 M.V.R.(2d) 220 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 63].

R. v. Burnison (1979), 70 C.C.C.(2d) 38 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 65].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 258(1)(c) [para. 5].

Counsel:

David Finley, for the appellant Crown;

Graham Webb, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard by Grange, Galligan and Arbour, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on June 4, 1992. The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered on September 10, 1992, and the following opinions were filed:

Galligan, J.A. (Grange, J.A., con­curring) - see paragraphs 1 to 54;

Arbour, J.A., dissenting - see paragraphs 55 to 72.