R. v. Stanley (T.), 2014 SKPC 19

JudgeScott, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
Case DateJanuary 27, 2014
JurisdictionSaskatchewan
Citations2014 SKPC 19;(2014), 437 Sask.R. 1 (PC)

R. v. Stanley (T.) (2014), 437 Sask.R. 1 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.024

Her Majesty the Queen v. Tyrell Stanley

(Information No. 46423604; 2014 SKPC 19)

Indexed As: R. v. Stanley (T.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Scott, P.C.J.

January 27, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while his blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The accused was charged with impaired driving - The police officer testified that the accused stopped for a red light one full car length into the intersection - The accused then backed up so that the officer needed to sound a loud air horn to alert the accused to his presence - After the light turned green, the accused pulled over to the right side of the road in the driving lane and stopped, even before the officer activated his siren or lights - The officer acknowledged that because of the staggered nature of the intersection, it was not surprising that a vehicle might not stop at exactly the correct spot - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found the accused not guilty of impaired driving - There was a reasonable, alternative explanation for the way in which the accused stopped for the red light and pulled over for the officer - Backing up to within two feet of the police cruiser in the circumstances revealed in the evidence, coupled with glassy bloodshot eyes, odour of alcohol and admission of consumption, were not sufficient - Based on the totality of the evidence, the court was left with a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was even slightly impaired by alcohol - See paragraphs 35 to 52.

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 impaired driving and driving while his blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit - He argued that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable after the alleged offence - Between the time of arrest and the time of the first breath test, 53 minutes elapsed - The crucial period, according to the accused's counsel, was the 15 minutes between the breath demand and the departure for the police station - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court concluded that the breath test was taken as soon as practicable as contemplated by s. 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code - During the approximately 15 minutes in question, the officers decided what to do with the accused's vehicle, removed it from the street, secured it, dealt with three other individuals and departed for the police station - The steps taken by the officers were reasonable - They were not required to testify with certainty or exact detail regarding every minute of that period - The first breath test was taken within 61 minutes of the time of the stop, well within the outside limit of two hours from the time of the offence to the time of the first test - See paragraphs 11 to 25.

Criminal Law - Topic 1382.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Service of certificate and copy (incl. computer generated copy) - The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while his blood-alcohol content exceeded the legal limit - Cst. Kowalenko testified that a true copy of the Certificate of Qualified Technician "would have been photocopied and compared" and given to the accused - He testified that "typically" the Certificate was photocopied and compared to make sure it was a true copy, but in this case, he could not be certain that a true copy was served upon the accused, as he did not make a note of it - Because the event took place 14 months prior he could not recall having done so - The accused argued that the Crown failed to prove the officer served a true copy of the Certificate of Qualified Technician upon the accused as required by s. 258(7) of the Criminal Code - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court stated that "Based upon the statement of Cst. Kowalenko on the reverse side of the Certificate, certifying service of a true copy upon the accused on September 29, 2012, coupled with the fact that the copy appears to have been a photocopy, as was the usual practice, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused received a true copy of the Certificate of Qualified Technician and Notice of Intention" - See paragraphs 26 to 34.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Dolezsar (N.) (2012), 394 Sask.R. 60; 2012 SKQB 6, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Forsythe (J.R.) (2009), 251 Man.R.(2d) 90; 478 W.A.C. 90; 2009 MBCA 123, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Grant (D.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353; 391 N.R. 1; 253 O.A.C. 124; 2009 SCC 32, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Wylie (R.), [2013] O.A.C. Uned. 552; 2013 ONCA 673, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Rilling, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 183; 5 N.R. 327, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Eden (1972), 84 Sask.R. 281 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Charette (K.) et al. (2009), 247 O.A.C. 369; 94 O.R.(3d) 721; 2009 ONCA 310, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Vanderbruggen (M.) (2006), 208 O.A.C. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Price (D.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 1898 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Burwell (J.) (2013), 412 Sask.R. 94; 2013 SKQB 20, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Glass (1973), 12 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Naidu (K.), [2004] O.T.C. 501 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Egger (J.H.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 451; 153 N.R. 272; 141 A.R. 81; 46 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Redford (B.S.) (2012), 549 A.R. 183; 2012 ABQB 768, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Danielson (T.L.) (2013), 428 Sask.R. 1; 2013 SKPC 121, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Dillabough (K.F.) (2013), 428 Sask.R. 28; 2013 SKPC 141, refd to. [para. 27].

R. v. Spreen (1987), 82 A.R. 318; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 190 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Longley (K.R.) (1997), 154 Sask.R. 220 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hall (S.J.) (1994), 125 Sask.R. 62; 81 W.A.C. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. MacDonald (D.E.) (1996), 146 Sask.R. 306 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Pelletier (J.G.) (1995), 128 Sask.R. 214; 85 W.A.C. 214 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Andrews (M.A.) (1996), 178 A.R. 182; 110 W.A.C. 182; 1996 ABCA 23, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Rice (K.) (2011), 386 Sask.R. 69; 2011 SKQB 412, refd to. [para. 39].

R. v. Bonter (C.W.) (2013), 412 Sask.R. 209 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 39].

Counsel:

Barbara Herder, for the Crown;

Leslie Sullivan, Q.C., for the accused.

This matter was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Scott, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on January 27, 2014.

To continue reading

Request your trial