Canada Case Law

R. v. Lewis

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court found the Crown proved care or control beyond a reasonable doubt because the accused was in the driver’s seat, was impaired above the legal limit, the keys were within easy reach of a manual transmission vehicle, the missing windshield and familiarity with his own vehicle created a realistic risk of danger; accordingly the accused was guilty under s.320.14(1)(b) and convicted of s.129(a); the s.320.14(1)(a) charge was stayed.

Source excerpt

• Care or control of motor vehicle
• Operation while impaired
• Flight from peace officer
• Section 320.14 criminal code

Read case analysis

R. v. Whitehead

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The court held the former presumption of identity continues to apply to transitional Over 80 cases, but the Crown failed to prove the requisite preconditions for both the presumption of identity (that each sample was received directly into the approved instrument) and the presumption of accuracy (including that the standard solution was certified/verified and specific calibration requirements), and therefore failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC was Over 80 or that he operated while impaired; accused acquitted.

Source excerpt

• Impaired operation
• Over 80 (bac over 80)
• Presumption of identity
• Presumption of accuracy
• Transitional provisions
• Breathalyzer evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Taugher

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise issues of significance to the general administration of justice; the request for costs was denied.

Source excerpt

• Leave to appeal
• Summary conviction appeal
• Conviction review

Read case analysis

R. v. Crewson

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Vanderbruggen test governs timing of breath tests, the issue was highly fact-specific and not a standalone question of law of public importance, and delays for contacting a parent are not per se impermissible — the totality of circumstances governs reasonableness.

Source excerpt

• Breath test timing
• As soon as practicable
• Police detention procedure
• Appeal/leave to appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Singh

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The trial judge correctly applied the governing principle from Vanderbruggen that "as soon as practicable" is assessed by reference to the whole chain of events and whether the police acted reasonably; an isolated unexplained short gap between breath samples does not automatically defeat admissibility; the summary conviction appeal judge erred in overturning the trial judge; conviction restored.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Breathalyzer timing
• "as soon as practicable" standard
• Section 258(1)(c)(ii)
• Admissibility of breath samples

Read case analysis

R. v. Lombard

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

The Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and, although a valid ASD demand was administered by Cst. McGuire and intentionally refused, the Information charged refusal of a breath demand under s.254(3)(a)(i) which the Crown did not prove; the court therefore denied the Crown’s application to amend the Information under s.601(3) to substitute a different refusal offence and acquitted the accused on both charges.

Source excerpt

• Operation while impaired s.253(1)(a)
• Refusal to provide breath sample s.254(5)
• Approved screening device (asd) procedure
• Charge drafting and amendment s.601(3)
• Burden of proof for demands under s.254

Read case analysis

R. v. Slaunwhite

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

On the accepted facts the demand under s.254(2) was lawful because the demand officer had reasonable grounds based on odour, sole occupancy, agitation and fumbling; the accused was afforded explanations and opportunities to provide four samples but failed to give a suitable sample and his medical excuse was not corroborated or credible; intention to avoid providing a suitable sample was properly inferred from conduct. Therefore conviction under s.254(5) is entered. Conversely, evidence of impairment lacked sufficient reliable indicia (no observed poor driving, limited corroboration of unstead…

Source excerpt

• Refusal to provide breath sample
• Approved screening device (asd) demand
• Reasonable grounds to suspect
• Mens rea for s.254(5)
• Reasonable excuse (medical/right to counsel)
• Credibility assessment

Read case analysis

R. v. Doucette

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Because the Datamaster C produced a permanent printed ticket for each breath sample, the Selig exception (which applies to transitory gauge readings) did not apply; police have no constitutional obligation to disclose such permanent test results pre-charge and the refusal did not violate ss.7 or 11(d); the s.24(2) application is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Section 24(2) charter - exclusion of evidence
• Section 7 charter - liberty and security/right to life
• Section 11(d) charter - right to fair trial/presumption of innocence
• Disclosure of police investigation results
• Breathalyzer procedure and evidentiary form
• Right to consult counsel (practical issue)

Read case analysis

R. v. Sullivan

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Appeal dismissed from a conviction for failing to provide a breath sample. The court held a 6-to-9 minute delay before the demand was reasonably prompt under s. 254(3).

• Refusal to provide breath sample
• Meaning of 'as soon as practicable'
• Delay between forming opinion and making demand
• Section 254(3) criminal code
• Criminal-law
• Impaired-driving

Read case analysis

R. v. White

Court

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

On the totality of the evidence — independent eyewitness accounts of unsteadiness and disorientation, the officer’s observation of a strong smell of alcohol, driving deficiencies and fumbling with keys — the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol to some degree and that her ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired.

Source excerpt

• Impaired driving
• Standard of proof - beyond a reasonable doubt
• Credibility of witnesses
• Effect of disability on assessment of evidence

Read case analysis