R. v. Synkiw (N.), (2014) 463 Sask.R. 305 (QB)

• Judge: Currie, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: November 05, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2014), 463 Sask.R. 305 (QB);2014 SKQB 362

R. v. Synkiw (N.) (2014), 463 Sask.R. 305 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. DE.084

Nicholas Synkiw (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2013 QBCA No. 19; 2014 SKQB 362)

Indexed As: R. v. Synkiw (N.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Currie, J.

November 5, 2014.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. He argued that his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights were violated and sought the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at (2010), 367 Sask.R. 83, found that the accused's s. 9 Charter rights were violated, excluded the evidence and acquitted the accused of both charges. The Crown appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2012), 404 Sask.R. 80, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. Following the second voir dire and trial, a trial judge ruled that there was no breach of the accused's Charter rights. The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and convicted of driving while having a blood-alcohol content exceeding the legal limit. The accused appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 1217

Security of the person - Lawful or reasonable search - Unreasonable search and seizure - What constitutes - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1404.1

Security of the person - Law enforcement - Breath or blood samples - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The police set up a roadside check stop - An officer observed an approaching car driven by Synkiw do a u-turn and head in the opposite direction - An officer stopped the car - Synkiw was subsequently charged with impaired driving offences - He argued that his s. 9 Charter rights were violated because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to stop his car - The trial judge concluded that the officer had articulable cause to stop Synkiw because he had reason to believe that Synkiw was engaged in criminal activity (drinking and driving) - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Synkiw's appeal - A reasonable person standing in the officer's shoes would recognize that there was, among the possible reasons for a driver manoeuvring his vehicle so as to avoid a check stop, the possibility that the driver was impaired or driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol content - Considering that possibility in the context of society's interest in preventing and detecting impaired driving offences, a reasonable person would conclude that the officer's suspicion was reasonable - See paragraphs 8 to 30.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.1

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Demand - The police set up a roadside check stop - An officer observed an approaching car driven by Synkiw do a u-turn and head in the opposite direction - An officer stopped the car - The following observations led him to demand a roadside breath sample: (1) Synkiw stumbled with his words; (2) Synkiw had bloodshot, glassy eyes; (3) an odour of liquor emanated from the car; (4) Synkiw stated that he was going to a friend's house, but then stated that he was actually going to work; (5) Synkiw had to catch his balance as he exited the car; (6) Synkiw's walk was unsteady; and (6) the officer could smell beverage alcohol coming from the back of the police cruiser after Synkiw was placed there - Synkiw was subsequently charged with impaired driving offences - He argued that his s. 8 Charter rights were violated because the officer did not have reasonable grounds to make the roadside demand - The trial judge rejected this argument - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Synkiw's appeal - The trial judge correctly found that the police had reasonable grounds to make a roadside demand - See paragraphs 31 to 44.

Police - Topic 3105

Powers - Investigation - Impaired driving (incl. sobriety tests, etc.) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Police - Topic 3204

Powers - Direction - Stopping vehicles - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 3603 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. MacKenzie (B.C.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 250; 448 N.R. 246; 2013 SCC 50, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Mann (P.H.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59; 324 N.R. 215; 187 Man.R.(2d) 1; 330 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 52, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Helm (B.E.), [2011] 6 W.W.R. 641; 368 Sask.R. 115; 2011 SKQB 32, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chehil (M.S.), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 220; 448 N.R. 370; 335 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 1060 A.P.R. 1; 2013 SCC 49, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 25].

Counsel:

Christopher A. Lavier, for the appellant;

Jaimie L. MacLean, for the respondent, Crown.

This appeal was heard before Currie, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on November 5, 2014.