R. v. Waskewitch (V.), (2001) 208 Sask.R. 71 (QB)

• Judge: Krueger, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 22, 2001
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2001), 208 Sask.R. 71 (QB);2001 SKQB 249

R. v. Waskewitch (V.) (2001), 208 Sask.R. 71 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2001] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.063

Violet Waskewitch (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2000 Q.B.A. No. 22; 2001 SKQB 249)

Indexed As: R. v. Waskewitch (V.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Battleford

Krueger, J.

May 22, 2001.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of refusing to comply with a demand for breath samples. The accused appealed the conviction on the ground that the trial judge erred in holding that the accused had not been arbitrarily detained in violation of her s. 9 Charter rights.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and entered an acquittal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3603

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes arbitrary detention - The accused appealed her conviction of refusing to comply with a demand for breath samples - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench allowed the appeal and entered an acquittal - The court held that the accused had been arbitrarily detained where there was no evidence that the accused had breached any of the rules of the road, the police officer was not investigating some crime and the accused's vehicle was stopped because she had driven close to the centre line and then pulled off the highway and later returned to it - There was no basis for concluding that the police officer was executing some lawful duty when he stopped the accused's vehicle - The detention was not only arbitrary, it was unlawful and infringed the accused's rights under s. 9 of the Charter.

Police - Topic 3204

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

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365; 27 O.A.C. 103; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 398; 63 C.R.(3d) 14; 4 M.V.R.(2d) 170; 32 C.R.R. 193, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Ladouceur, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1257; 108 N.R. 171; 40 O.A.C. 171; 77 C.R.(3d) 110; 56 C.C.C.(3d) 22; 21 M.V.R.(2d) 165, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Duncanson (1991), 93 Sask.R. 193; 4 W.A.C. 193; 12 C.R.(4th) 86; 30 M.V.R.(2d) 17 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Lott (E.C.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 133 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Rost (K.O.) (1999), 176 Sask.R. 260 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Simpson (R.) (1993), 60 O.A.C. 327; 79 C.C.C.(3d) 482 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Dedman, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 2; 60 N.R. 34; 11 O.A.C. 241; 46 C.R.(3d) 193; 20 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 34 M.V.R. 1, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Sundquist (M.R.) (1999), 182 Sask.R. 181; 216 W.A.C. 181 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Mellenthin, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 615; 144 N.R. 50; 135 A.R. 1; 33 W.A.C. 1; 76 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 11].

Counsel:

Ronald P. Piche, for the appellant;

K. Scott Bartlett, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before Krueger, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Battleford, who delivered the following decision on May 22, 2001.