R. v. Blinn

R. v. Blinn

Both charges arose from the same act and the same evidentiary nexus (presence of alcohol in the bloodstream); s.100A(1) MVA, although stricter and applicable to a class of drivers, shares the essential element with s.253(1)(b) CC and contains no additional distinguishing element that goes to guilt; therefore Kienapple and res judicata preclude further prosecution on s.253(1)(b) after conviction and sentence for s.100A(1); a stay of the s.253(1)(b) prosecution is required.

Citation
2009 NSPC 19
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty The Queen; Accused: Adrien Bernard Blinn
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
26 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Conviction Application to Quash or Stay Prosecution
Outcome
Stay of proceedings ordered
Legal Topics
Double Jeopardy, Kienapple Principle, Res Judicata, Included Offence Doctrine, Motor Vehicle Offences, Statutory Interpretation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Provincial Regulatory Law Double Jeopardy Kienapple Principle Res Judicata Included Offence Doctrine Motor Vehicle Offences Statutory Interpretation

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty The Queen

Crown

Adrien Bernard Blinn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Post Conviction Application to Quash or Stay Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a prior conviction under s.100A(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act precludes subsequent conviction under s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for the same incident
  2. 2 Whether the Kienapple principle against multiple convictions applies where one offence is provincial strict liability zero-tolerance and the other is a federal criminal offence with a higher blood alcohol threshold
  3. 3 Whether the Crown election to proceed first on a lesser offence precludes later prosecution on a more serious offence

Ratio Decidendi

Both charges arose from the same act and the same evidentiary nexus (presence of alcohol in the bloodstream); s.100A(1) MVA, although stricter and applicable to a class of drivers, shares the essential element with s.253(1)(b) CC and contains no additional distinguishing element that goes to guilt; therefore Kienapple and res judicata preclude further prosecution on s.253(1)(b) after conviction and sentence for s.100A(1); a stay of the s.253(1)(b) prosecution is required.

Court Disposition

Stay of proceedings ordered

Orders

  • Stay of proceedings on the charge contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code
  • Crown barred from continuing prosecution on the s.253(1)(b) charge arising from the same facts