R. v. Rowson
- Citation
- 2016 SCC 40
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal (final Disposition)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Supreme Court of Canada
- Decision
- 14 October 2016
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal (final Disposition)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
A majority concluded that, despite identified Charter issues, the admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore the evidence was properly admitted; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
- Convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit are upheld.
02
Material facts
Parties
Eric Andrew Rowson
Appellant Counsel: Jennifer Ruttan and Michael BatesHer Majesty The Queen
Respondent Counsel: Christine RideoutAmounts and remedies
- Case Number: 36,777
- Citation Year: 2,016
03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court of Canada Appeal (final Disposition)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the detention was arbitrary under s.9 of the Charter
- 02
Whether the accused’s right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Charter was violated
- 03
Whether breath sample evidence should be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter due to Charter breaches
- 04
Whether admission of the breath evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute
Party arguments
- Applicant
- Appellant argued there were multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention and denial of counsel, and that the cumulative effect of those breaches warranted exclusion of the breathalyzer evidence and reversal of convictions.
- Respondent
- Crown argued that any breaches did not warrant exclusion; that admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute; and that the convictions should be upheld.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.9
Protection against arbitrary detention
- 02
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.10(b)
Right to retain and instruct counsel upon detention or arrest
- 03
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s.24(2) and established Supreme Court s.24(2) jurisprudence
Remedy for Charter breaches via exclusion of evidence where admission would bring administration of justice into disrepute
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
A majority concluded that, despite identified Charter issues, the admission of the breath sample evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore the evidence was properly admitted; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the convictions were upheld.
Obiter and limits
- The majority endorsed the reasoning of Justice O’Ferrall from the Alberta Court of Appeal.
- Two judges (Abella and Côté JJ.) expressed that the cumulative effect of multiple breaches would warrant exclusion of the breathalyzer evidence, constituting a dissent on remedy.
- Judgment was delivered orally at the Supreme Court of Canada.
Court disposition
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
- Appeal dismissed.
- Convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit are upheld.
Source and reliance status
Supreme Court of Canada · 14 October 2016
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Supreme Court of Canada
Judgment· 14 October 2016
R. v. Rowson Collection Supreme Court Judgments Date 2016-10-14 Neutral citation 2016 SCC 40 Report [2016] 2 SCR 158 Case number 36777 Judges Abella, Rosalie Silberman; Moldaver, Michael J.; Wagner, Richard; Côté, Suzanne; Brown, Russell On appeal from Alberta Notes SCC Case Information: 36777 Decision Content
SUPREME COURT OF CANADA Citation: R. v. Rowson, 2016 SCC 40, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 158 Reference of a matter heard: October 14, 2016 Order: October 14, 2016 Docket: 36777 Between: Eric Andrew Rowson Appellant and Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Coram: Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ. Reasons for Order: (para.
1) Abella J. (Moldaver, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ. concurring) R. v. Rowson, 2016 SCC 40, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 158 Eric Andrew Rowson Appellant v. Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Indexed as: R. v. Rowson 2016 SCC 40 File No.: 36777. 2016: October 14. Present: Abella, Moldaver, Wagner, Côté and Brown JJ. on appeal from the court of appeal for alberta Constitutional law — Charter of Rights — Arbitrary detention — Right to counsel — Search and seizure — Remedy — Exclusion of evidence — Admission of breath sample evidence would not bring administration of justice into disrepute — Accused’s convictions upheld. APPEAL from a judgment of the Alberta Court of Appeal (Martin, O’Ferrall and Veldhuis JJ.A.), 2015 ABCA 354, 29 Alta. L.R. (6th) 40, 332 C.C.C. (3d) 165, 607 A.R. 334, 653 W.A.C. 334, 91 M.V.R. (6th) 51, [2016] 4 W.W.R. 483, [2015] A.J. No. 1253 (QL), 2015 CarswellAlta 2139 (WL Can.), upholding the accused’s convictions for impaired driving causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing bodily harm and driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit entered by Martin J. Appeal dismissed, Abella and Côté JJ. dissenting. Jennifer Ruttan and Michael Bates, for the appellant. Christine Rideout, for the respondent. The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by [1] Abella J. — A majority of this panel is of the view that the appeal should be dismissed substantially for the reasons of Justice O’Ferrall. Justice Côté and I would allow the appeal primarily on the basis that the cumulative effect of the multiple breaches warranted the exclusion of the breathalyzer evidence. Judgment accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant: Ruttan Bates, Calgary. Solicitor for the respondent: Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.