R. v. Hokansson

R. v. Hokansson

Given the facts, the officer's decisions to call and wait for a tow, to move the vehicle when the tow was delayed, not to permit back-seat phone consultations, and to process the detainee at station were objectively reasonable; the Crown discharged the burden to justify the delays so there were no breaches of s.10(b), s.9 or s.8, and therefore the breath readings were admissible and supported conviction for s.320.14(1)(b) with a reading of 80 mg/100ml.

Citation
2024 NSPC 21
Parties
Crown: His Majesty the King; Accused: Connor Hokansson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Decision (oral)
Outcome
Conviction entered on s.320.14(1)(b); acquittal entered on s.320.14(1)(a)
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel (s.10(b)), Arbitrary Detention (s.9), Unreasonable Search and Seizure (s.8), Breath Sample Procedure, Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)), Impaired Driving (criminal Code S.320.14)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Right to Counsel (s.10(b)) Arbitrary Detention (s.9) Unreasonable Search and Seizure (s.8) Breath Sample Procedure Exclusion of Evidence (s.24(2)) Impaired Driving (criminal Code S.320.14)

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

His Majesty the King

Crown

Connor Hokansson

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Decision (oral)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in implementation of s.10(b) right to counsel was unreasonable
  2. 2 Whether detention was arbitrary under s.9 during roadside tow-wait and post-breath processing
  3. 3 Whether obtaining breath samples violated s.8 or required being taken "as soon as practicable" under post-2018 Criminal Code

Ratio Decidendi

Given the facts, the officer's decisions to call and wait for a tow, to move the vehicle when the tow was delayed, not to permit back-seat phone consultations, and to process the detainee at station were objectively reasonable; the Crown discharged the burden to justify the delays so there were no breaches of s.10(b), s.9 or s.8, and therefore the breath readings were admissible and supported conviction for s.320.14(1)(b) with a reading of 80 mg/100ml.

Court Disposition

Conviction entered on s.320.14(1)(b); acquittal entered on s.320.14(1)(a)

Orders

  • Conviction entered for s.320.14(1)(b) with recorded breath reading 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres
  • Acquittal entered on charge under s.320.14(1)(a)