R. v. Sundquist (M.R.),

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2000 SKCA 50
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 14 March 2000
• Citation: (2000), 189 Sask.R. 273 (CA),2000 SKCA 50,[2000] 7 WWR 411,145 CCC (3d) 145,[2000] SJ No 299 (QL),189 Sask R 273,[2000] S.J. No 299 (QL),189 SaskR 273,(2000), 189 SaskR 273 (CA),189 Sask.R. 273

R. v. Sundquist (M.R.) (2000), 189 Sask.R. 273 (CA);

    216 W.A.C. 273

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.062

Monty Rae Sundquist (appellant) v. Her Majesty The Queen (respondent)

(No. 7844; 2000 SKCA 50)

Indexed As: R. v. Sundquist (M.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A.

May 8, 2000.

Summary:

The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and driving while having an exces­sive blood-alcohol level. The Crown appealed the acquittals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at 182 Sask.R. 181, allowed the appeal, quashed the acquit­tals, and remitted the matter to the Provincial Court for a new trial. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal dis­missed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608

Right to counsel - Right to be advised of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8348 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law (Charter, s. 1) - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held that the law authorized police officers to conduct sobriety tests for the purposes of both s. 91(3) of the Highway Traffic Act and s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, and to do so without first informing the person of his or her s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel - The court further held that the inconsist­ency between the law and s. 10(b) of the Charter was justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Police - Topic 3105

Powers - Investigation - Impaired driving (incl. sobriety tests etc.) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 8348 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Saunders (1988), 27 O.A.C. 184; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 532 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Bonin (1989), 47 C.C.C.(3d) 230 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Thomsen, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 85; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 411; 63 C.R.(3d) 1; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 185; 32 C.R.R. 257, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 32 M.V.R. 153; 45 C.R.(3d) 97, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Milne (R.S.) (1996), 90 O.A.C. 348; 107 C.C.C.(3d) 118 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused [1996] 3 S.C.R. xiii; 207 N.R. 78; 97 O.A.C. 159, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Waterfield, [1963] 3 All E.R. 659 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Talbourdet (1984), 32 Sask.R. 5; 12 C.C.C.(3d) 173 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 46].

R. v. Seo (1986), 13 O.A.C. 359; 25 C.C.C.(3d) 385 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Perkins (J.E.) (1993), 112 Sask.R. 20 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Gallant (1989), 95 A.R. 101; 48 C.C.C.(3d) 329 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Sullivan (1989), 22 M.V.R.(2d) 261 (Ct. Martial Appeal Ct.), refd to. [para. 58].

R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 12 C.R.(4th) 86; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 69].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 19 C.R.R. 308, refd to. [para. 76].

R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al., [1986] 2 S.C.R. 713; 71 N.R. 161; 19 O.A.C. 239; 30 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 55 C.R.(3d) 193; 35 D.L.R.(4th) 1; 28 C.R.R. 1, refd to. [para. 77].

Edwards Books and Art Ltd. v. R. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

R. v. Edwards Books and Art Ltd. - see R. v. Videoflicks Ltd. et al.

Statutes Noticed:

Highway Traffic Act, S.S. 1986, c. H-3.1, sect. 40(8), sect. 91(2), sect. 91(3) [para. 12].

Interpretation Act, S.S. 1995, c. I-11.2, sect. 25 [para. 12].

Counsel:

Brian Lannan, for the appellant;

J.T. Irvine and Marilyn Poitras, for the Attorney General.

This appeal was heard on March 14, 2000, before Tallis, Cameron and Gerwing, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Cameron, J.A., on May 8, 2000.