Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Criminal law - Enforcement - Appeals - Standard of review - Evidence - Taking of bodily samples - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by failing to deal with the issue of whether leave should be granted in the case before dealing with the substantive arguments in the case - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the lower courts erred in concluding that the police officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the Appellant’s ability to properly operate a motor vehicle was impaired - Whether the Court of Appeal erred by substituting its findings of fact for those of the trial judge where there was evidence to substantiate the findings of the trial judge - Whether the Court of Appeal erred in finding that the trial judge had not offered a full analysis prior to excluding the evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms - Whether the Court of Appeal erred when finding that lower courts failed to find that the decision of the trial judge to acquit the accused of impaired driving was unreasonable and that the reasons offered by the trial judge failed to meet the minimum standard of providing reasons sufficient to permit appellate review.

The Appellant was acquitted at trial of charges of impaired driving, driving while over the legal blood alcohol level and failing to stop while pursued by a police officer. The trial judge held that while the officer subjectively believed that the Appellant’s ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, this belief was not objectively reasonable. Although the Appellant failed to stop for the police officer, he explained that he had mistaken the police vehicle for an ambulance. The trial judge found that the officer failed to take proper account of this explanation. The officer would have had grounds for an ALERT roadside test but did not have the requisite reasonable and probable grounds to demand a breathalyzer test. As a result, the trial judge excluded the Certificate of Analysis from evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and acquitted the Appellant of all the charges. The Crown’s appeal to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench was dismissed. The summary conviction appeal court judge deferred to the trial judge’s findings with respect to the reasonable and probable grounds issue and upheld the acquittals. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown’s appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the Certificate of Analysis was improperly excluded. The dissenting judge in the Court of Appeal would have dismissed the appeal, deferring to the trial judge on the reasonable and probable grounds issue and holding that conscriptive real evidence obtained in breach of an accused’s Charter rights must be excluded as a general rule pursuant to s. 24(2).