R. v. Brown

R. v. Brown

Section 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code is constitutionally valid in the circumstances: the MAS demand was authorized by law, the statute is a reasonable law that minimally impairs privacy given the regulatory nature of driving and the minimal intrusiveness of an ASD breath sample, and any detention aspects are proportionate to the pressing objective of detecting and deterring impaired driving; accordingly ss.8 and 9 are not infringed in a manner that requires exclusion and the breath analysis results are admissible.

Citation
2021 NSPC 32
Parties
Crown/respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused/applicant: Carlyle William Brown
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Charter Challenge to Statutory Provision / Decision on Motion to Exclude Evidence (motion Hearing)
Outcome
Motion dismissed; evidence admissible
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Mandatory Alcohol Screening, Section 8 Search and Seizure, Section 9 Arbitrary Detention, Section 1 Oakes Analysis, Admissibility of Breath Analysis
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Charter Law Traffic Law Impaired Driving Mandatory Alcohol Screening Section 8 Search and Seizure Section 9 Arbitrary Detention +2 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 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown/respondent

Carlyle William Brown

Accused/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Charter Challenge to Statutory Provision / Decision on Motion to Exclude Evidence (motion Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.320.27(2) Criminal Code violates s.8 of the Charter (unreasonable search and seizure)
  2. 2 Whether s.320.27(2) Criminal Code violates s.9 of the Charter (arbitrary detention)
  3. 3 If a Charter breach exists, whether it is justified under s.1 of the Charter

Ratio Decidendi

Section 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code is constitutionally valid in the circumstances: the MAS demand was authorized by law, the statute is a reasonable law that minimally impairs privacy given the regulatory nature of driving and the minimal intrusiveness of an ASD breath sample, and any detention aspects are proportionate to the pressing objective of detecting and deterring impaired driving; accordingly ss.8 and 9 are not infringed in a manner that requires exclusion and the breath analysis results are admissible.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; evidence admissible

Orders

  • Motion to exclude evidence of the results of the breath analysis dismissed
  • Results of analysis of Mr. Brown's breath admissible at trial