R. v. Joyce

R. v. Joyce

On the totality of the circumstances known to the evaluating officer at the time of the stop the officer had reasonable grounds to make a s.254(3.1) demand; the officer was a statutorily qualified evaluating officer and conducted the regulated evaluation properly; the officer's opinion and the analyst's certificate together established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired by CNS stimulants at the time of driving, therefore the Charter application failed and the accused was convicted under para. 253(1)(a).

Citation
2017 NSPC 81
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: David Allen Joyce
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving Drugs) / Trial With Blended Voir Dire; Verdict Delivered, Sentencing Adjourned for Presentence Report
Outcome
Accused found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to para. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; sentencing adjourned for presentence report.
Legal Topics
Drug Impaired Driving, Section 8 Search and Seizure, Section 254 Drug Evaluation Regime, Expert Opinion Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2), Mens Rea Presumption (king)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law (charter) Evidence Law Drug Impaired Driving Section 8 Search and Seizure Section 254 Drug Evaluation Regime Expert Opinion Evidence Exclusion of Evidence S.24(2) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

David Allen Joyce

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving Drugs) / Trial With Blended Voir Dire; Verdict Delivered, Sentencing Adjourned for Presentence Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the s.254(3.1) evaluation demand was authorized by reasonable grounds under s.8 of the Charter
  2. 2 Whether the evaluating officer's opinion evidence was admissible as expert opinion under Mohan/White Burgess and Bingley
  3. 3 Whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug (actus reus) and that mens rea was established or not rebutted

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the circumstances known to the evaluating officer at the time of the stop the officer had reasonable grounds to make a s.254(3.1) demand; the officer was a statutorily qualified evaluating officer and conducted the regulated evaluation properly; the officer's opinion and the analyst's certificate together established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired by CNS stimulants at the time of driving, therefore the Charter application failed and the accused was convicted under para. 253(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to para. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code; sentencing adjourned for presentence report.

Orders

  • Charter application to exclude evidence dismissed
  • Evaluating officer's evidence admitted