R. v. Wasson

R. v. Wasson

On the totality of credible evidence — the observed unsafe driving, consistent officer observations of alcohol odour and slurred speech, corroborating audio admission of drinking, and the inability of medical evidence to explain those specific indicia as negating impairment of driving ability — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol; absence of a blood demand did not require an adverse inference.

Citation
2012 NSPC 79
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Norma Louise Wasson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
18 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Convicted of offence contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breath and Blood Demand Discretion, Credibility and Witness Reliability, Circumstantial Evidence, Medical Condition as Alternative Explanation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic/motor Vehicle Offences Evidence Impaired Driving Breath and Blood Demand Discretion Credibility and Witness Reliability Circumstantial Evidence Medical Condition as Alternative Explanation

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Norma Louise Wasson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol on August 5, 2011
  2. 2 Whether medical conditions/existing medications could explain observed signs of impairment
  3. 3 Whether police failure to demand a blood sample permits an adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of credible evidence — the observed unsafe driving, consistent officer observations of alcohol odour and slurred speech, corroborating audio admission of drinking, and the inability of medical evidence to explain those specific indicia as negating impairment of driving ability — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol; absence of a blood demand did not require an adverse inference.

Court Disposition

Convicted of offence contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code

Orders

  • Convicted of offence contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code