R. v. Tanner (J.R.), (2012) 389 Sask.R. 42 (QB)

• Judge: Danyliuk, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: January 09, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2012), 389 Sask.R. 42 (QB);2012 SKQB 10

R. v. Tanner (J.R.) (2012), 389 Sask.R. 42 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.022

James Robert Tanner (accused) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2010 Q.B.G. No. 11; 2012 SKQB 10)

Indexed As: R. v. Tanner (J.R.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Wynyard

Danyliuk, J.

January 9, 2012.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction of driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

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

Civil Rights - Topic 1646

Property - Search and seizure - Unreasonable search and seizure defined - Police officers stopped the accused after he failed to obey a stop sign - The accused immediately exited his vehicle - The officers noticed some indicia of impairment, i.e., unsteady on his feet, swaying back and forth, red eyes and odour of alcohol - The officers noticed a beer case in plain view inside the vehicle - The accused was "belligerent" and "hostile" and became increasingly uncooperative - The officers advised the accused that he was being detained - The accused walked away and refused to be detained - It took two officers to handcuff him - Breath samples revealed blood alcohol levels of .16 and .15 - The accused was convicted of driving while his blood-alcohol level exceeded the legal limit - He appealed, asserting that the trial judge erred in finding that the accused's ss. 8, 9 and 10 Charter right were not violated - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - The search of the accused's vehicle did not violate s. 8 - The accused's detention was lawful - There was no undue delay - The accused was aggressive, hostile and refused to cooperate - The officers' efforts to quell a volatile situation added time to the process - There was no violation of s. 9 - Finally, there was no violation of s. 10 - There was no legal support of the arguments that an approved screening device demand at the scene was required before a full breath test could be demanded or that the officers should have afforded the accused the opportunity to use a cell phone at the scene to call his counsel.

Civil Rights - Topic 1650

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Plain view doctrine - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 1651

Property - Search and seizure - Warrantless search and seizure - Motor vehicles - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4604

Right to counsel - General - Denial of or interference with - What constitutes - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - [See Civil Rights - Topic 1646 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Bigsky (J.S.), [2007] 4 W.W.R. 99; 289 Sask.R. 179; 382 W.A.C. 179; 2006 SKCA 145, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 22].

R. v. Shepherd (C.), [2007] 4 W.W.R. 659; 289 Sask.R. 286; 382 W.A.C. 286; 2007 SKCA 29, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Henry (B.) (2006), 286 Sask.R. 154; 2006 SKQB 469, refd to. [para. 23].

R. v. Schaeffer (D.B.), [2005] 10 W.W.R. 54; 257 Sask.R. 219; 342 W.A.C. 219; 2005 SKCA 33, refd to. [para. 32].

R. v. Nolet (R.) et al. (2010), 403 N.R. 1; 350 Sask.R. 51; 487 W.A.C. 51; 2010 SCC 24, refd to. [para. 33].

R. v. Houben (K.) (2004), 246 Sask.R. 34; 2004 SKPC 26, refd to. [para. 35].

R. v. Hult (2008), 63 M.V.R.(5th) 287; 2008 SKQB 52, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Yakubowski-Suderman (C.) (2011), 378 Sask.R. 165; 2011 SKQB 221, refd to. [para. 48].

R. v. Rodgers (R.J.) (2011), 380 Sask.R. 1; 2011 SKQB 244, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Deforest (M.E.) (2010), 349 Sask.R. 299; 2010 SKQB 40, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Durocher (E.), [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 152; 74 M.V.R.(5th) 169; 2008 SKQB 160, refd to. [para. 50].

Counsel:

Jonathan S. Abrametz, for the accused;

Darren Grindle, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by Danyliuk, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Wynyard, who delivered the following judgment on January 9, 2012.