R. v. Rhyno

R. v. Rhyno

The judge found the amendments in Bill C-2 to be evidentiary/procedural rather than substantive, accepted the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Dineley that the Carter defence survives in altered form with added evidentiary requirements, and therefore concluded the amendments should be read retrospectively and apply to the charges in this case.

Citation
2010 NSPC 24
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Duane Alan Rhyno
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Over the Limit Breathalyzer Charges / Pre Trial Ruling on Retrospectivity and Admissibility (motion on Whether Bill C 2 Applies Retrospectively)
Outcome
Judge held that the provisions of Bill C-2 amending s.258 of the Criminal Code apply retrospectively to the offences in this matter.
Legal Topics
Retrospective Application of Legislation, Presumption of Identity Under S.258, Carter Defence, Breathalyzer Reliability, Procedural Vs Substantive Law
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Statutory Interpretation Constitutional Law Retrospective Application of Legislation Presumption of Identity Under S.258 Carter Defence Breathalyzer Reliability +1 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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Duane Alan Rhyno

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Over the Limit Breathalyzer Charges / Pre Trial Ruling on Retrospectivity and Admissibility (motion on Whether Bill C 2 Applies Retrospectively)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendments to s.258 Criminal Code (Bill C-2) apply to offences alleged before enactment
  2. 2 Whether the amendments are substantive (removing a defence) or procedural/evidentiary
  3. 3 Whether the Carter defence survives and in what form under Bill C-2

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the amendments in Bill C-2 to be evidentiary/procedural rather than substantive, accepted the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Dineley that the Carter defence survives in altered form with added evidentiary requirements, and therefore concluded the amendments should be read retrospectively and apply to the charges in this case.

Court Disposition

Judge held that the provisions of Bill C-2 amending s.258 of the Criminal Code apply retrospectively to the offences in this matter.

Orders

  • Provisions of Bill C-2 (Tackling Violent Crime Act, S.C. 2008, c. 6) amending s.258 of the Criminal Code are to be read as applying retrospectively to the charges in this case; the Carter defence survives in modified form with added evidentiary requirements.