R. v. Sturge, (1987) 80 N.B.R.(2d) 249 (PC)

• Judge: Harper, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of New Brunswick (Canada)
• Case Date: March 06, 1987
• Jurisdiction: New Brunswick
• Citations: (1987), 80 N.B.R.(2d) 249 (PC)

R. v. Sturge (1987), 80 N.B.R.(2d) 249 (PC);

    80 R.N.-B.(2e) 249; 202 A.P.R. 249

MLB headnote and full text

Sommaire et texte intégral

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

R. v. James Ross Sturge

Indexed As: R. v. Sturge

Répertorié: R. v. Sturge

New Brunswick Provincial Court

Criminal Division

Harper, P.C.J.

March 6, 1987.

Summary:

Résumé:

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content, contrary to s. 237(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused argued that s. 241(1)(c)(iv) of the Code was ultra vires because it violated his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as guaranteed by s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights.

The New Brunswick Provincial Court agreed with the accused, dismissed the information and found the accused not guilty.

Civil Rights - Topic 4951

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Proof - Statutory presumptions - Section 241(1)(c)(iv) of the Criminal Code provided that evidence of the results of analysis of breath samples was, absent evidence to the contrary, proof that the accused's blood-alcohol level at the time of the analysis was the same as that at the time of the offence - The New Brunswick Provincial Court held that the presumption raised was a mandatory rebuttal presumption with a "basic fact" i.e. the chemical analysis of breath samples - The court held that it was impossible for the accused to rebut the presumption, because the presumed fact was a falsity, where blood-alcohol concentration constantly changed - The court held that s. 241(1)(c)(iv) violated a presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter and could not be justified under s. 1.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4951 above].

Cases Noticed:

Woolmington v. D.P.P., [1935] A.C. 462, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Oakes, 32 C.R.(3d) 193, consd. [para. 10].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1, consd. [para. 15].

R. v. Moreau (1978), 23 N.R. 541; 42 C.C.C.(2d) 525, refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hamilton, 28 M.V.R. 127, consd. [para. 51].

R. v. Seo (1986), 13 O.A.C. 359; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 385, not appld. [para. 64].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 241(1)(c)(iv) [paras. 2, 4, 16-17, 21, 26, 30, 35, 39-40, 45, 49-50, 56-57, 60, 76, 78, 81].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [paras. 5, 9, 30-31, 42-43, 47, 52, 57, 76]; sect. 11(d) [paras. 6, 12, 30-31, 41, 52, 57, 62].

Authors and Works Noticed:

MacKay, Wayne and Cromwell, T.A., Critique of R. v. Oakes, 32 C.R.(3d) 221 [paras. 25, 43].

Counsel:

Glendon Abbott, for the Crown;

Richard Bell, for the defendant.

This charge was heard before Harper, P.C.J., of the New Brunswick Provincial Court, Criminal Division, whose decision was delivered on March 6, 1987.