R. v. Thall (W.A.), 2015 SKCA 10

• Judge: Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: January 30, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2015 SKCA 10;(2015), 451 Sask.R. 242 (CA)

R. v. Thall (W.A.) (2015), 451 Sask.R. 242 (CA);

    628 W.A.C. 242

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. FE.004

Wayde Arnold Thall (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CACR2495; 2015 SKCA 10)

Indexed As: R. v. Thall (W.A.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A.

January 30, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of driving with a blood-alcohol content over .08. He appealed both conviction and sentence. The conviction appeal was based on a putative breach of the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2014] Sask.R. TBEd. AU.043, dismissed the appeal against both conviction and sentence. The accused sought leave to appeal the dismissal of his conviction and sentence appeals.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal the conviction and indicated that the appeal would have been dismissed on the merits in any event. The court agreed with the summary conviction appeal court judge that the trial judge made no error when he found the police officer fulfilled his informational and implementational duties under s. 10(b) of the Charter. The sentence appeal was abandoned.

Civil Rights - Topic 4608.1

Right to counsel - General - Advice re - Understanding of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4609

Right to counsel - General - Duty to notify accused of or explain right to counsel - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4610

Right to counsel - General - Impaired driving (incl. demand for breath or blood sample) - The accused appealed his conviction for driving over .08, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights - The accused argued that when at the detachment, once he voiced concern about the cost of counsel or his ability to afford same, an additional duty was triggered for the officer to further explain the availability of free duty counsel - The summary conviction appeal court judge rejected the argument - The accused received full advice as to his right to counsel at the scene and he said that he understood - At that point the officer had fully complied with the informational component of the obligation to provide the accused with his right to counsel - When, at the detachment, the officer again asked the accused if he wished to contact counsel and the accused said he did, it triggered a duty for the officer to move into the implementational phase of the right to counsel - The officer fulfilled that duty - The accused was taken into a telephone room, which had a telephone book, rights posted on the wall in three languages, and information and telephone numbers for legal aid - He was shown the numbers and the phone book - The accused then made a statement that he thought lawyers were too expensive - A few seconds later he said that he did not want to call a lawyer - The officer then gave a Prosper warning, obtaining an acknowledgement from the accused that he understood and that he waived his rights and no longer wished to contact a lawyer - There was no breach of s. 10(b) - The accused's appeal was dismissed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal denied the accused's application for leave to appeal - The court agreed with the summary conviction appeal court judge that the trial judge made no error when he found the officer fulfilled his informational and implementational duties under s. 10(b).

Civil Rights - Topic 4612

Right to counsel - General - Waiver or abandonment of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 4617.1

Right to counsel - General - Notice of - Sufficiency of - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4610 ].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 10(b) [para. 2].

Counsel:

Peter A. Abrametz, for the appellant;

Erin Schroh, for the respondent.

This application for leave to appeal was heard on January 30, 2015, before Lane, Ottenbreit and Ryan-Froslie, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was rendered orally on January 30, 2015, and the following written reasons were delivered by Ottenbreit, J.A., on February 3, 2015.