R. v. Brewer

R. v. Brewer

Where an accused admits recent driving and is found standing beside an immobilized vehicle shortly after an accident, the phrase 'is operating/has care or control' in s.254(2) can be construed to include recent past driving so police lawfully may demand roadside and breath samples; resulting breath evidence was admissible and supported convictions.

Citation
2008 NSPC 63
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Robert Angus Brewer; Victim: Murielle Theres Arsenault
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm) / Trial (voir Dire; Conviction)
Outcome
Accused convicted of operation over legal limit (Criminal Code s.253(b)) and of having care or control causing bodily harm (s.255(2)); judicial stay entered on s.253(a); application to exclude breath evidence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer/roadside Screening, Search and Seizure, Detention, Right to Counsel, Causation, Exclusion of Evidence Under S.24(2)
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Charter of Rights and Freedoms Road Traffic Offences Impaired Driving Breathalyzer/roadside Screening Search and Seizure Detention Right to Counsel +2 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 5 Authorities cited 37 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Robert Angus Brewer

Defendant

Murielle Theres Arsenault

Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm) / Trial (voir Dire; Conviction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.254(2) roadside demand and s.254(3) breathalyzer demand were lawful where accused was outside vehicle at police contact
  2. 2 Whether the present tense 'is operating/has care or control' admits a past signification
  3. 3 Whether Charter rights (ss.8,9,10) were breached and evidence must be excluded under s.24(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Where an accused admits recent driving and is found standing beside an immobilized vehicle shortly after an accident, the phrase 'is operating/has care or control' in s.254(2) can be construed to include recent past driving so police lawfully may demand roadside and breath samples; resulting breath evidence was admissible and supported convictions.

Court Disposition

Accused convicted of operation over legal limit (Criminal Code s.253(b)) and of having care or control causing bodily harm (s.255(2)); judicial stay entered on s.253(a); application to exclude breath evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • Convicted of Criminal Code s.253(b) (operation with BAC over 80 mg/100 mL)
  • Convicted of Criminal Code s.255(2) (care or control causing bodily harm)