R. v. Wilson (S.R.G.), 2013 SKQB 137

• Judge: Gerein, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: April 15, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: 2013 SKQB 137;(2013), 418 Sask.R. 210 (QB)

R. v. Wilson (S.R.G.) (2013), 418 Sask.R. 210 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.005

Sean R.G. Wilson (appellant) v. Her Majesty the Queen (respondent)

(2011 C.A. No. 30; 2013 SKQB 137)

Indexed As: R. v. Wilson (S.R.G.)

Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial Centre of Saskatoon

Gerein, J.

April 15, 2013.

Summary:

Wilson was charged with impaired driving and with having care or control of a vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court, in a decision reported at (2011), 382 Sask.R. 37, convicted Wilson of impaired driving and acquitted him of having care or control of a vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. Wilson appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 3265

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Speedy trial - Accused's right to - What constitutes "within a reasonable time" - On May 7, 2009, Wilson was charged with impaired driving offences - At his trial on June 27, 2011, he alleged, inter alia, that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed - The trial court rejected the argument, finding that there were 11.2 months of institutional delay - The Crown was solely responsible for five months of delay - The defence was solely responsible for 8.8 months of delay - While institutional delay was attributable to the Crown, it was not given the same weight as delay caused by the Crown's conduct - The overall delay was not unreasonable - There was no breach of the Charter - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the accused's appeal - The trial judge correctly balanced the interests of the Crown, the accused and society - It took too long for the matter to be brought to trial, but, in the circumstances, the delay was not unreasonable - See paragraphs 11 to 18.

Civil Rights - Topic 3133

Trials - Due process, fundamental justice and fair hearings - Criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings - Right of accused to make full answer and defence - [See Courts - Topic 554 ].

Courts - Topic 554

Judges - Duties - To control court proceedings - Wilson was convicted of impaired driving - On appeal, he asserted that the trial judge's manner of conducting the trial was detrimental to the parties' ability to present their positions fairly and was, thus, prejudicial to the appearance that justice was done - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - This ground of appeal called into question the trial judge's authority to manage the trial's conduct - It was true that the trial judge had heard evidence and submissions in one day with the trial continuing into the evening - No ruling was made on a delay application in advance of hearing testimony - No ruling was made regarding the accused's argument questioning the validity of s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code because it was unnecessary - The Crown was refused an adjournment - Things did not progress the way counsel anticipated - This was always a possibility and was not, normally, a good ground of appeal - Subject to what was reasonable, a trial judge was the master in the courtroom - The trial judge's discretion was exercised properly - Wilson was able to make full answer and defence - See paragraphs 28 to 33.

Criminal Law - Topic 128

General principles - Rights of accused - Right to make full answer and defence - [See Courts - Topic 554 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - Around 9:15 p.m., a civilian observed a vehicle being driven erratically and followed it, while calling 911, to where it stopped - The vehicle was out of the civilian's sight for about 20 seconds while the civilian made a U-turn - Around 9:30 p.m., an officer arrived, arrested Wilson, who was asleep in the driver's seat, and made a breathalyzer demand - The trial court convicted Wilson of impaired driving - On appeal, Wilson asserted that the trial judge had erred in failing to address evidence that was inconsistent with impairment - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the appeal - This was a lengthy judgment that was well reasoned - The trial judge was cognizant of the applicable law and had an appreciation of the evidence - Based on the nature of the driving, the physical indicia of impairment and Wilson's admission of alcohol consumption, the trial judge convicted Wilson - That verdict accorded with the evidence and was not the result of any error - The trial judge was not required to address all of the evidence specifically - See paragraphs 19 to 27.

Criminal Law - Topic 4684

Procedure - Judgments and reasons for judgment - Reasons for judgment - Sufficiency of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1362 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Yebes, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 168; 78 N.R. 351; 36 C.C.C.(3d) 417, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Burns (R.H.), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656; 165 N.R. 374; 42 B.C.A.C. 161; 67 W.A.C. 161; 89 C.C.C.(3d) 193, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Biniaris (J.), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 381; 252 N.R. 204; 134 B.C.A.C. 161; 219 W.A.C. 161; 2000 SCC 15, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Blanchette (B.) (2009), 335 Sask.R. 84; 2009 SKQB 148, refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Boutin (D.) (2011), 380 Sask.R. 169; 2011 SKQB 265, refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Askov, Hussey, Melo and Gugliotta, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199; 113 N.R. 241; 42 O.A.C. 81; 74 D.L.R.(4th) 355, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Morin, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 771; 134 N.R. 321; 53 O.A.C. 241; 71 C.C.C.(3d) 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Godin (M.), [2009] 2 S.C.R. 3; 389 N.R. 1; 252 O.A.C. 377; 2009 SCC 26, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Slavik (D.) (2009), 345 Sask.R. 149; 2009 SKPC 123, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Thomas (G.T.D.) (2012), 393 Sask.R. 1; 546 W.A.C. 1; 2012 SKCA 30, dist. [para. 26].

R. v. Major (W.S.) (2004), 241 Sask.R. 306; 313 W.A.C. 306; 2004 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Salisbury (T.J.) (2012), 385 Sask.R. 322; 536 W.A.C. 322; 2012 SKCA 32, refd to. [para. 31].

Counsel:

Mark Brayford, Q.C., for the accused;

Cory Bliss, for the Crown.

This appeal was heard by Gerein, J., of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial Centre of Saskatoon, who delivered the following judgment on April 15, 2013.