R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.), 2012 SKCA 30

• Judge: Vancise, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Case Date: November 21, 2011
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2012 SKCA 30;(2012), 393 Sask.R. 1 (CA)

R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 1 (CA);

    546 W.A.C. 1

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.055

George Thurston Daniel Thomas (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(CACR1967; 2012 SKCA 30)

Indexed As: R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.)

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Vancise, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A.

March 12, 2012.

Summary:

The accused appealed his conviction for impaired driving (Criminal Code, s. 253(1)(a)).

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial.

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - The accused was convicted of impaired driving - The evidence consisted of the testimony of two police officers and three lay witnesses, as well as a video and audio surveillance record of the accused while he was detained at the police detachment - The officers testified that the accused exhibited no signs of impaired driving, but they each noticed an odour of alcohol on his breath and that his eyes were glossy - He failed roadside approved screening device - The lay witnesses (two were the accused's friends and were the ones who called the police) testified that the accused was drunk when he left a bar - The accused showed no signs of impairment in surveillance evidence - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the accused's appeal, quashed the conviction and ordered a new trial - The direct evidence of impaired driving was sparse - The trial judge did not err by relying on lay witness opinion evidence as to the impairment of the accused's ability to drive - However, he overlooked the surveillance evidences - It could have opened the door to the inference that the accused was not impaired.

Criminal Law - Topic 4868

Appeals - Indictable offences - Grounds of appeal - Failure to consider evidence - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1362 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Sheppard (C.), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 869; 284 N.R. 342; 211 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 50; 633 A.P.R. 50; 2002 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Polturak (1988), 90 A.R. 158; 61 Alta. L.R.(2d) 306 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Beals v. R. (1956), 25 C.R. 85; 117 C.C.C. 22 (N.S.C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. A.L.E. (2009), 359 Sask.R. 59; 494 W.A.C. 59; 2009 SKCA 65, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Lohrer (A.W.), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 732; 329 N.R. 1; 208 B.C.A.C. 1; 344 W.A.C. 1; 2004 SCC 80, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Harper, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 2; 40 N.R. 255, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Ahenakew (D.), [2008] 2 W.W.R. 68; 307 Sask.R. 220; 417 W.A.C. 220; 2008 SKCA 4, refd to. [para. 16].

Counsel:

Ronald Piché, for the appellant;

Anthony Gerein, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard on November 21, 2011, before Vanicse, Richards and Caldwell, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The decision of the court was delivered by Caldwell, J.A., on March 12, 2012.