R. v. Threader

R. v. Threader

The summary conviction appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard; the trial judge's factual finding that the officer lacked requisite grounds for a s.254(3) demand was reasonable and not open to interference on appeal, and because the Crown did not argue exclusion under s.24(2) at trial it would be...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C37996
Parties
Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Carrie Ann Threader
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; acquittal restored.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer, Reasonable Grounds for Demand Under S.254(3), Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence, Standard of Review, Summary Conviction Appeal
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Law Impaired Driving Breathalyzer Reasonable Grounds for Demand Under S.254(3) Section 24(2) Exclusion of Evidence Standard of Review +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

Carrie Ann Threader

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Appeal to Court of Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the summary conviction appeal judge applied the correct standard of review to the trial judge's finding of no requisite grounds for a s.254(3) demand
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge's finding that the officer lacked requisite grounds was unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether the breathalyzer evidence would have been excluded under s.24(2) if argued at trial

Ratio Decidendi

The summary conviction appeal judge erred by applying a correctness standard; the trial judge's factual finding that the officer lacked requisite grounds for a s.254(3) demand was reasonable and not open to interference on appeal, and because the Crown did not argue exclusion under s.24(2) at trial it would be inappropriate to order a new trial to litigate that issue; accordingly the acquittal is restored.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal allowed; acquittal restored.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed