R. v. Stickney (J.A.), (2008) 319 Sask.R. 293 (PC)

• Judge: Meekma, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 21, 2008
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2008), 319 Sask.R. 293 (PC);2008 SKPC 152

R. v. Stickney (J.A.) (2008), 319 Sask.R. 293 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2008] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.022

Her Majesty the Queen v. James Allan Stickney

(Information No. 36876338; 2008 SKPC 152)

Indexed As: R. v. Stickney (J.A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Meekma, P.C.J.

November 21, 2008.

Summary:

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or drugs. The defence raised Charter (ss. 9 and 10) issues respecting admissibility of evidence.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court dealt with the admissibility issues and found the accused guilty as charged.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - Two junior police constables observed the accused, a police inspector, stagger from a bar to a vehicle, where he got into the driver's seat and started the van - Junior Constable C. ran to the van, thinking she had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for a breath demand because of his staggering - She informed him that he was under arrest for "impaired" - She observed other indicia of impairment - A senior police sergeant arrived and using "officer discretion", "unarrested" the accused and transported him home in his police car - The accused was never cautioned - He was subsequently charged with a care or control offence - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that Constable C. had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and the detention was lawful until the sergeant arrived - The evidence up to that point was therefore admitted - However, while the sergeant was taking the accused home, he was being arbitrarily detained contrary to s. 9 and 10(b) of the Charter, because there was still a possibility of charges - Considering the circumstances, the court ruled that a statement made to the sergeant by the accused was not voluntary and therefore inadmissible, and in any event, should be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter - However, the sergeant's observations of symptoms of impairment prior to the accused getting into his police car, unlike the accused's statement, were non-conscriptive and therefore admissible - The sergeant's observations in the police car and at the accused's residence were also admitted, notwithstanding the Charter breach, because exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute - After considering all the admissible evidence, the court convicted the accused as charged.

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 8368

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Denial of rights - Remedies - Exclusion of evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control or operating - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement was made freely and voluntarily - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4604 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Cliffe (T.J.), [2008] O.T.C. Uned. 37 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 40].

R. v. Bernshaw (N.) (1995), 176 N.R. 81; 53 B.C.A.C. 1; 87 W.A.C. 1; 95 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. McConnell (J.A.), [2008] B.C.T.C. Uned. B71; 2008 BCSC 505, refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Jackson (1977), 34 C.C.C.(2d) 35 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Oickle (R.F.) (2000), 259 N.R. 227; 187 N.S.R.(2d) 201; 585 A.P.R. 201; 2000 SCC 38, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Shepherd (C.) (2007), 289 Sask.R. 286; 382 W.A.C. 286; 218 C.C.C.(3d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Chorney (H.Q.) (2008), 452 A.R. 1; 2008 ABPC 206, refd to. [para. 51].

R. v. Collins (1987), 74 N.R. 276; 33 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 52].

R. v. Coles (M.F.), [2005] A.R. Uned. 950 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Milne (R.S.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 348; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 118 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 57].

R. v. Okemow (R.A.) (2008), 326 Sask.R. 174; 2008 SKPC 119, refd to. [para. 60].

R. v. Matt (L.) (1992), 137 A.R. 95 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Richard (1986), 76 N.B.R.(2d) 198; 192 A.P.R. 198 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 64].

R. v. Gilchrist (T.) (2008), 325 Sask.R. 141; 2008 SKPC 142, refd to. [para. 75].

R. v. Stellato (T.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 478; 168 N.R. 190; 72 O.A.C. 140, refd to. [para. 76].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 9, sect. 10(b) [para. 2].

Counsel:

W.G. Burge, for the Crown;

J.D. Watson, for the accused.

This matter was heard by Meekma, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on November 21, 2008.