R. v. Whyte, (1988) 86 N.R. 328 (SCC)

• Judge: Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: July 14, 1988
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1988), 86 N.R. 328 (SCC);35 CRR 1;6 MVR (2d) 138;51 DLR (4th) 481;29 BCLR (2d) 273;64 CR (3d) 123;86 NR 328;[1988] 5 WWR 26;42 CCC (3d) 97;[1988] SCJ No 63 (QL);[1988] 2 SCR 3;[1988] ACS no 63;1988 CanLII 47 (SCC)

R. v. Whyte (1988), 86 N.R. 328 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

.........................

Ronald James Whyte v. Her Majesty the Queen and the Attorney General of Canada

(18530)

Indexed As: R. v. Whyte

Supreme Court of Canada

Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ.

July 14, 1988.

Summary:

The alcohol-impaired accused was found slumped over the steering wheel of his vehicle parked at roadside, its hood warm, the dash lights and ignition on, but its engine not running. The British Columbia Provincial Court in a judgment reported [1983] B.C.D. Crim. Conv. 5600-01 convicted him of having care or control while impaired on the basis of the presumption of care or control arising from his occupation of the driver's seat in s. 237(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The British Columbia County Court in a judgment reported 21 M.V.R. 69 dismissed his appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal in a judgment reported 6 D.L.R.(4th) 263; 10 C.C.C.(3d) 277; 10 C.R.R. 344; 38 C.R.(3d) 24; 25 M.V.R. 22, dismissed his appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the conviction. The court held that although s. 237(1)(a) violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter, it was valid as a reasonable limit prescribed by law pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter.

Civil Rights - Topic 4901

Presumption of innocence - General principles - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the general principles respecting the presumption of innocence and stated that it requires the trier of fact to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of all of the essential elements of the offence - See paragraphs 23 to 26.

Civil Rights - Topic 4945

Presumption of innocence - Evidence - Reverse onus provisions - The Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 237(1)(a), provided that occupation of the driver's seat of a motor vehicle raised a presumption of care or control - The Supreme Court of Canada held that s. 237(1)(a) violated the presumption of innocence in s. 11(d) of the Charter, but that it was valid as a reasonable limit prescribed by law pursuant to s. 1 of the Charter - See paragraphs 27 to 49.

Civil Rights - Topic 8348

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Application - Exceptions - Reasonable limits prescribed by law - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 above].

Civil Rights - Topic 8474

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Interpretation - Precedent - Canadian Bill of Rights cases - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, because the Charter is constitutional in nature and the Canadian Bill of Rights is not, precedent decided under the Bill of Rights should be reassessed in considering cases under the Charter - See paragraphs 20 to 21.

Criminal Law - Topic 1368

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Care or control - What constitutes - Presumption from occupation of driver's seat - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4945 above].

Statutes - Topic 1624

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Other statutes - Prior statutes respecting same subject matter - The Supreme Court of Canada, in determining whether the presumption of care or control from occupation of the driver's seat under s. 237(1)(a) of the Criminal Code violated s. 11(d) of the Charter, considered the legislative development of s. 237(1)(a) - See paragraphs 41 to 47.

Statutes - Topic 1644

Interpretation - Extrinsic aids - Legislative history - Legislative debates - The Supreme Court of Canada referred to a 1947 House of Commons Debate respecting an amendment to the Criminal Code addressing the problem of care or control of a motor vehicle - See paragraph 45.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Appleby, [1972] S.C.R. 303, consd. [paras. 8, 14-22].

R. v. Oakes, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 103; 65 N.R. 87; 14 O.A.C. 335; 50 C.R.(3d) 1; 24 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 26 D.L.R.(4th) 200, appld. [paras. 10, 23].

R. v. Shelley, [1981] 2 S.C.R. 196; 37 N.R. 320, refd to. [para. 11] Re Boyle and R. (1983), 5 C.C.C.(3d) 193 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Latour, [1951] S.C.R. 19, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Tupper, [1967] S.C.R. 589, appld. [para. 16].

Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] A.C. 462, appld. [para. 18].

R. v. Big M. Drug Mart Ltd., [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295; [1985] 3 W.W.R. 481; 58 N.R. 81; 60 A.R. 161; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 385; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 321; 37 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97; 85 C.L.L.C. 14,023; 13 C.R.R. 64, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Proudlock, [1979] 1 S.C.R. 525; 24 N.R. 19, appld. [para. 16].

R. v. Robertson and Rosetanni, [1963] S.C.R. 651, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Therens, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 613; [1985] 4 W.W.R. 286; 59 N.R. 122; 40 Sask.R. 122; 18 C.C.C.(3d) 481; 45 C.R.(3d) 97; 18 D.L.R.(4th) 655; 32 M.V.R. 153, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Chromiak, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 471; 29 N.R. 441, refd to. [para. 20].

Reference re Section 94(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act (B.C.), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486; 63 N.R. 266; [1986] 1 W.W.R. 481; 24 D.L.R.(4th) 536; 23 C.C.C.(3d) 289; 48 C.R.(3d) 289; 36 M.V.R. 240; 69 B.C.L.R. 145; 18 C.R.R. 30, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Duke, [1972] 2 S.C.R. 917, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Smith (E.D.), [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1045; 75 N.R. 321, appld. [para. 20].

R. v. Miller and Cockriell, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 680; 11 N.R. 386, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Dubois, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 350; 62 N.R. 50; 66 A.R. 202; [1986] 3 W.W.R. 577; 48 C.R.(3d) 193; 22 C.C.C.(3d) 513, appld. [para. 23].

R. v. Vaillancourt, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 636; 81 N.R. 115; 10 O.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 23].

R. v. Holmes (1988), 85 N.R. 21 (S.C.C.), appld. [para. 23].

R. v. Ford, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 231; 40 N.R. 451; 36 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 254; 101 A.P.R. 254; 66 C.C.C.(2d) 392; 13 M.V.R. 237, appld. [para. 28].

R. v. Toews, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 119; 61 N.R. 349; 21 C.C.C.(3d) 24; 47 C.R.(3d) 213, refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Saunders, [1967] S.C.R. 284, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Curr, [1972] S.C.R. 889, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Hufsky, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 621; 84 N.R. 365, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Thomson, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 640; 84 N.R. 347; 27 O.A.C. 25, consd. [para. 36].

R. v. Higgins, [1929] 1 D.L.R. 269 (Ont. S.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Butler, [1939] 4 D.L.R. 592 (Alta. C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Crowe (1941), 16 M.P.R. 101 (N.S.C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Thomson, [1941] 1 D.L.R. 516 (N.B.C.A.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Forbes, [1943] O.W.N. 96 (Ont.C.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Armstrong, [1944] 1 D.L.R. 233 (Ont.C.C.), consd. [para. 42].

R. v. Hyatt, [1945] O.R. 629 (Ont. H.C.), consd. [para. 42].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Bill of Rights, R.S.C. 1970, App. III, sect. 2 [para. 2].

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 35]; sect. 11(d) [para. 3].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 237(1) [para. 1].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Debates of the House of Commons, 3rd Sess., 20th Parl. (1947), vol. VI, p. 5048 [para. 45].

Counsel:

Terry Robertson, Q.C., and Brian Shaw, for the appellant accused;

Dennis Murray, Q.C., and Richard Isaac, for the respondent Crown;

Julius A. Isaac and D.J. Avison, for the Attorney General of Canada.

Solicitors of Record:

Robertson, Peck, Thompson and Casilio, Vancouver, British Columbia, for the appellant;

Ministry of the Attorney General, Victoria, British Columbia, for the respondent;

Frank Iacobucci, Ottawa, Ontario, for the intervener.

This case was heard on October 15, 1987, at Ottawa, Ontario, before Dickson, C.J.C., Beetz, Estey, McIntyre, Lamer, La Forest and L'Heureux-Dubé, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On July 14, 1988, Dickson, C.J.C., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada in which Estey, J., did not take part: