R. v. Zimmerman (K.), 2012 ABQB 600

• Judge: Graesser, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: June 14, 2012
• Jurisdiction: Alberta
• Citations: 2012 ABQB 600;(2012), 549 A.R. 1 (QB)

R. v. Zimmerman (K.) (2012), 549 A.R. 1 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2012] A.R. TBEd. OC.045

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. Kevin Zimmerman (appellant)

(090635582S1; 2012 ABQB 600)

Indexed As: R. v. Zimmerman (K.)

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Edmonton

Graesser, J.

September 28, 2012.

Summary:

The accused was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit. The trial judge rejected the accused's argument that the Crown failed to prove that the breathalyzer machine had been properly calibrated with a suitable alcohol standard solution (SAS). The accused had also sought to challenge the constitutionality of 2008 amendments to s. 258(1) of the Criminal Code that required more than evidence of consumption of alcohol to rebut the presumption of accuracy of the breathalyzer test. The trial judge found that the accused's evidence of consumption was not credible, so it was unnecessary to deal with the constitutional challenge. The accused appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in admitting the breathalyzer certificate in evidence without proof that the SAS was suitable and in not hearing the constitutional challenge to the s. 258(1) amendments.

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

Constitutional Law - Topic 21

Raising constitutional issues - General - [See Courts - Topic 2286].

Courts - Topic 2286

Jurisdiction - Bars - Academic matters or moot issues - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench held that a trial judge did not err in not dealing with an accused's constitutional challenge that 2008 amendments to s. 258(1) of the Criminal Code infringed his Charter rights, where the argument was moot to the result - Even if the Charter challenge was successful, the trial result would have been unaffected - A court should not consider constitutional arguments that had no bearing on the case - See paragraphs 95 to 99.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence (incl. evidence tending to show) - [See Criminal Law - Topic 1382 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1382

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence - Cross- examination of analyst or technician - The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle while having a blood-alcohol level exceeding the legal limit - The accused argued that the Crown failed to prove that the breathalyzer machine had been properly calibrated with a suitable alcohol standard solution (SAS), which rebutted the presumption of accuracy of the breathalyzer readings - The qualified technician who conducted the test had testified that he was an approved technician, that he used the breathalyzer machine in accordance with his training, that the machine was working properly, that the SAS used was from a bottle with an intact seal and whose expiry date had not passed, and that the readings were accurate based on his understanding of the test procedures he used - Another officer, not at the police detachment at the time of the offence, gave irrelevant evidence respecting suitability of SAS, but not as to the suitability of the particular lot used - The trial judge held that there was no evidence that the SAS was not suitable - The breathalyzer certificate was admitted into evidence and the accused was found guilty - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the accused's appeal - The Crown need not prove the suitability of the SAS unless there was evidence to the contrary that the solution was unsuitable - There was no such evidence here - The breathalyzer certificate was admissible - Its accuracy was not rebutted - Although the SAS evidence was irrelevant, what evidence was led merely gave the trial judge "further comfort" that the SAS was suitable and the irrelevant evidence played no part in the decision, as evidence of suitability was not a precondition to admissibility of a breathalyzer certificate - See paragraphs 21 to 62.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230; 11 Alta. L.R.(2d) 347; 1980 CarswellAlta 4 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 14].

R. v. Luth (I.M.) (2009), 480 A.R. 213 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Boymook (K.L.) (1998), 234 A.R. 47; 1998 ABPC 115, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Barry (D.P.), [2007] A.R. Uned. 607; 2007 ABPC 312, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Phillips, [2009] O.J. No. 1107 (C.J.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Kroeger (1992), 97 Sask.R. 263; 12 W.A.C. 263; 36 M.V.R.(2d) 55; 1992 CarswellSask 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Hall (C.F.) (2003), 341 A.R. 33; 2003 ABPC 124, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. J.M.H., [2011] 3 S.C.R. 197; 421 N.R. 76; 283 O.A.C. 379; 2011 SCC 45, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Truong (C.), [2009] B.C.T.C. Uned. 22; 78 M.V.R.(5th) 7; 2009 BCSC 22, affd. (2010), 296 B.C.A.C. 248; 503 W.A.C. 248 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Tidlund (R.J.) (2010), 486 A.R. 370; 92 M.V.R.(5th) 306; 2010 ABPC 29, refd to. [para. 18].

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. 18].

R. v. Hall (1981), 26 A.R. 313; 14 Alta. L.R.(2d) 326; 1981 CarswellAlta 2 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Davis (1983), 42 A.R. 185; 1983 CarswellAlta 476 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Yan (V.) (2010), 487 A.R. 328; 495 W.A.C. 328; 2010 CarswellAlta 1175; 2010 ABCA 218, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Disney (D.B.) (2008), 461 A.R. 61; 2008 CarswellAlta 197; 2008 ABQB 751, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Beaudoin (H.J.), [2008] A.R. Uned. 656; 2008 CarswellAlta 1609; 2008 ABQB 656, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Brown (1980), 27 A.R. 407; 1980 CarswellAlta 416 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Ragan (1985), 67 A.R. 329; 37 M.V.R. 220; 1985 CarswellAlta 310 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. McLeod (1983), 43 A.R. 220; 1983 CarswellAlta 486 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Oakley (1980), 31 A.R. 579; 6 M.V.R. 158; 1980 CarswellAlta 145 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Cardinal (S.R.) (2001), 301 A.R. 1; 2001 CarswellAlta 1427; 2001 ABQB 872, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Crosthwait, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1089; 31 N.R. 603; 25 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 509; 68 A.P.R. 509; 1980 CarswellNfld 1, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Chapman (T.N.), [2007] B.C.T.C. Uned. 499; 2007 CarswellBC 1434; 2007 BCSC 903, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. MacEachern (G.W.) (1993), 127 N.S.R.(2d) 37; 355 A.P.R. 37; 1 M.V.R.(3d) 268; 1993 CarswellNS 2 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Floate (T.D.) (2001), 308 A.R. 82; 2001 CarswellAlta 1373; 2001 ABPC 193, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Abbey, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 24; 43 N.R. 30; 1982 CarswellBC 230, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Graat, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 819; 45 N.R. 451; 1982 CarswellOnt 101, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Arp (B.), [1998] 3 S.C.R. 339; 232 N.R. 317; 114 B.C.A.C. 1; 186 W.A.C. 1; 129 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 1998 CarswellBC 2545, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Boswell (L.) (2011), 280 O.A.C. 283; 2011 CarswellOnt 2428; 2011 ONCA 283, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Blea (A.J.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 17; 2012 CarswellAlta 159; 2012 ABCA 41, refd to. [para. 18].

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, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Bergamin (C.) (1996), 187 A.R. 333; 127 W.A.C. 333; 1996 CarswellAlta 857 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. St. Pierre (G.R.), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 791; 178 N.R. 241; 79 O.A.C. 321; 96 C.C.C.(3d) 385, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Boucher (E.), [2005] 3 S.C.R. 499; 342 N.R. 42; 2005 SCC 72, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Gibson (R.A.), [2008] 1 S.C.R. 397; 373 N.R. 1; 429 A.R. 327; 421 W.A.C. 327; 264 N.S.R.(2d) 331; 847 A.P.R. 331; 2008 SCC 16, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Lightfoot, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 566; 36 N.R. 349; 1981 CarswellOnt 1578, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Magee (1981), 29 A.R. 86; 1981 CarswellAlta 43 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Harding (V.G.) (1994), 70 O.A.C. 340; 1994 CarswellOnt 25 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. O'Brien (M.D.) (2011), 417 N.R. 52; 304 N.S.R.(2d) 383; 960 A.P.R. 383; 2011 CarswellNS 350; 2011 SCC 29, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hibbert (K.R.), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 445; 287 N.R. 111; 165 B.C.A.C. 161; 270 W.A.C. 161; 2002 SCC 39, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Brace (R.E.) et al. (2009), 264 B.C.A.C. 272; 445 W.A.C. 272; 2009 CarswellYukon 1; 2009 YKCA 1, refd to. [para. 18].

Manitoba v. Air Canada and Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R. 303; 32 N.R. 244; 4 Man.R.(2d) 278; 1980 CarswellMan 170, refd to. [para. 18].

Skapinker v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 357; 53 N.R. 169; 3 O.A.C. 321; 1984 CarswellOnt 796, refd to. [para. 18].

Phillips et al. v. Richard, J., [1995] 2 S.C.R. 97; 180 N.R. 1; 141 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 403 A.P.R. 1; 1995 CarswellNS 12, refd to. [para. 18].

Phillips v. Nova Scotia (Commission of Inquiry into the Westray Mine Tragedy) - see Phillips et al. v. Richard, J.

R. v. Kinnear (R.) (2005), 199 O.A.C. 323; 198 C.C.C.(3d) 232; 2005 CarswellOnt 2423 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

Borowski v. Canada (Attorney General), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 342; 92 N.R. 110; 75 Sask.R. 82; 1989 CarswellSask 241, refd to. [para. 18].

Schachter v. Canada et al., [1992] 2 S.C.R. 679; 139 N.R. 1; 1992 CarswellNat 1006, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Dineley (S.) (2009), 256 O.A.C. 235; 2009 CarswellOnt 7170; 2009 ONCA 814, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Gartner (J.J.) et al. (2010), 490 A.R. 268; 497 W.A.C. 268; 2010 CarswellAlta 2170; 2010 ABCA 335, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Clark (D.J.) - see R. v. Gartner (J.J.) et al.

R. v. Duff (R.A.) (2010), 501 A.R. 122; 2010 CarswellAlta 1962; 2010 ABPC 319, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Drolet, 2010 CarswellQue 9778; 2010 QCCQ 7719, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Maalouf, 2010 QCCQ 12569, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. St. Onge-Lamoureux, 2010 QCCQ 8552, refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Squires (1994), 114 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 157; 356 A.P.R. 157; 87 C.C.C.(3d) 430 (Nfld. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. Ware (1975), 30 C.R.N.S. 308 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

R. v. C.R.B., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 717; 107 N.R. 241; 109 A.R. 81, refd to. [para. 49].

R. v. Abbey (W.) (2009), 254 O.A.C. 9; 2009 ONCA 624, refd to. [para. 53].

R. v. Euler (N.), [2008] O.A.C. Uned. 375; 2008 ONCA 526, refd to. [para. 71].

R. v. Schuldt, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592; 63 N.R. 241; 38 Man.R.(2d) 257, refd to. [para. 71].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Kerans, Roger P., and Willey, Kim M., Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (2nd Ed. 2006), pp. 134, 135 [para. 49]; 299 [para. 50].

Counsel:

Jason Russell, for the respondent;

Andrew L. Zebak, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on June 14, 2012, before Graesser, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on September 28, 2012.