R. v. Rheaume

R. v. Rheaume

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge permissibly accepted the officer's contemporaneous account that the appellant expressly refused to provide a breath sample on the basis of counsel's advice, rejected the appellant's after-the-fact explanation as not credible, and the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a reasonable excuse for the refusal.

Citation
2009 BCSC 1319
Parties
Crown: Regina; Appellant/accused: Jason Matthew Rheaume
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
28 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal From Conviction in Provincial Court to Supreme Court of British Columbia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; stay of driving prohibition terminated.
Legal Topics
Refusal to Provide Breath Sample, Section 254(5) Criminal Code, Reasonable Excuse, Credibility Findings, Sufficiency of Reasons
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure Refusal to Provide Breath Sample Section 254(5) Criminal Code Reasonable Excuse Credibility Findings Sufficiency of Reasons

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Jason Matthew Rheaume

Appellant/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal From Conviction in Provincial Court to Supreme Court of British Columbia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing or refusing to provide a breath sample
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred by not treating the evidence as presenting a reasonable doubt even if the appellant was disbelieved

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge permissibly accepted the officer's contemporaneous account that the appellant expressly refused to provide a breath sample on the basis of counsel's advice, rejected the appellant's after-the-fact explanation as not credible, and the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities a reasonable excuse for the refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; stay of driving prohibition terminated.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction under s.254(5) of the Criminal Code upheld