R. v. Tessier (C.V.), (2006) 408 A.R. 305 (PC)

• Judge: Daniel, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 30, 2006
• Citations: (2006), 408 A.R. 305 (PC);2006 ABPC 267

R. v. Tessier (C.V.) (2006), 408 A.R. 305 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2006] A.R. TBEd. OC.075

Her Majesty the Queen v. Colin Victor Tessier (060557113P10102; 2006 ABPC 267)

Indexed As: R. v. Tessier (C.V.)

Alberta Provincial Court

Daniel, P.C.J.

September 21, 2006.

Summary:

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The accused was stopped for speeding - The police officer noticed a smell of alcohol on the accused's breath and made a roadside screening demand - It registered a fail - The officer made a breathalyzer demand - At the police station, the accused was unable to speak to his lawyer and refused to provide a breath sample - He was charged with failing to comply with a breathalyzer demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code - The Alberta Provincial Court found the accused not guilty - The officer utilized the roadside tester as the sole criterion relied upon to make the breathalyzer demand and as such, the Crown ought to have proven the screening device was an "approved screening device" - As the Crown did not prove the arresting officer conducted the roadside screening device with an "approved screening device", the ensuing breathalyzer demand was unlawful and the accused could not be convicted of refusal.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.4

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1372 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Brownridge, [1972] S.C.R. 926, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Meade (1990), 23 M.V.R.(2d) 12 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Zappacosta (A.) (2002), 309 A.R. 390 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Neitsch (D.J.) (2006), 395 A.R. 202 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Prosper (1994), 172 N.R. 161; 133 N.S.R.(2d) 321; 380 A.P.R. 321 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Bartle (K.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 173; 172 N.R. 1; 74 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Stawnichy, [1985] A.J. No. 579 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Fontaine, [1990] A.J. No. 781 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Arsenault (D.J.) (2005), 295 N.B.R.(2d) 123; 766 A.P.R. 123 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Boyko (K.D.) (1997), 154 Sask.R. 173 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Jones (B.C.) (2001), 243 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 631 A.P.R. 1 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Low (S.C.) (2005), 266 Sask.R. 284 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dhillon (G.S.) (2006), 394 A.R. 269 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Lebrun (S.R.) (1999), 178 N.S.R.(2d) 388; 549 A.P.R. 388 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Toope (K.S.) (2002), 208 N.S.R.(2d) 129; 652 A.P.R. 129 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. J.J.A. (2005), 383 A.R. 179 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Grant, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 139; 130 N.R. 250; 93 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 292 A.P.R. 181, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Middlebrook (M.J.), [1995] A.J. No. 975 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hogan, [1975] 2 S.C.R. 574; 2 N.R. 343; 9 N.S.R.(2d) 145, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Balkan (1973), 13 C.C.C.(2d) 482 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chromiak (1979), 14 A.R. 222 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Chromiak, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 471; 29 N.R. 441; 24 A.R. 206, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Campbell (1978), 9 A.R. 277 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Brown (1981), 33 A.R. 575 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McEachern (1984), 55 A.R. 209 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Falk (1985), 70 A.R. 74 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. LeCocq (1988), 89 A.R. 11 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Snow (R.D.) (2004), 372 A.R. 297; 2004 ABPC 211, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ketchum (H.J.) (1999), 260 A.R. 340; 1999 ABPC 157, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Hamelin (E.O.) (2001), 297 A.R. 201; 2001 ABQB 742, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Buffalo (D.A.) (2003), 337 A.R. 120; 2003 ABQB 124, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Luong (G.V.) (2000), 271 A.R. 368; 234 W.A.C. 368 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ross - see R. v. Leclair and Ross.

R. v. Leclair and Ross, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 3; 91 N.R. 81; 31 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Mastin (1991), 65 C.C.C.(3d) 204 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Ogrodnick (C.) (2006), 393 A.R. 6; 2006 ABQB 91, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Cunningham (1989), 97 A.R. 81 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. McKelvey, [1996] A.J. No. 375 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Dolan, [2000] Y.J. No. 30 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

Counsel:

J. Day, for the Crown;

T. Foster, for the Defence.

This case was heard on June 30, 2006, by Daniel, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, who delivered the following decision on September 21, 2006.