COLLISION RECONSTRUCTION - NEW TRIAL ORDERED AS COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN "JUDICIAL NOTICE" OF HIGH RATE OF SPEED

Ms. Sonstelie was driving north at a rural Alberta intersection when she struck a vehicle travelling west, injuring two people. She was acquitted of impaired/exceed .08 causing allegations but was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.  The Court took judicial notice of the fact that Ms. Sonstelie had to have driven at a high rate of speed because of the extent of the impact with the other vehicle. The Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial as the evidence did not support the inference of a high rate of speed on the part of Ms. Sonstelie. The Court gave examples of the types of evidence that could allow such an inference to be made : "I certainly do not suggest that, in every case, there must be an accident reconstruction report or other expert evidence in order for a trial judge to draw an inference of a high rate of speed. In many cases, drawing such an inference will be justified by considering such factors (among others) as the type of road, the weather conditions, eye witness reports about speed, and the damage to and placement of the vehicle or vehicles following the collision." R. v. Sonstelie, 2013 ABCA 7

IMPAIRED DRIVING IN CANADA, 2011

Statistics Canada has released its annual Juristat Article on Impaired Driving in Canada.  It is a useful reference to find out, among other things, what provinces have the highest impaired driving rates and what time of day has the highest number of police-reported impaired driving incidents. Knowledge of such information can be useful in investigating possible impaired drivers and also can be useful in adding to an officer's level of training regarding impaired driving investigations.  Impaired Driving in Canada, 2011

REASONABLE GROUNDS - COURT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE OFFICER'S TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE

Although not a driving case, the case of R. v. Phung is a useful reminder that officers should always describe their training and experience, both in their reports and in their testimony. Mr. Phung was arrested in Calgary following a period of surveillance during which a police officer believed he observed Mr. Phung engage in a drug transaction. The surveillance was prompted by tips by two informers making allegations about an Asian male engaged in drug dealing. The trial judge found the officer’s observations were insufficient by themselves to constitute reasonable and probable grounds to justify the arrest, but that, in the context of the informer tips and having regard to the officer’s experience as a police officer, there were grounds to make the arrest. The trial judge convicted Mr. Phung for eight offences, including possession of drugs, stolen property and weaponry.  The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. R. v. Phung, 2013 ABCA 63

REASONABLE GROUNDS - AN ARRESTING OFFICER CAN RELY ON INFERENCES ARISING FROM OBSERVED FACTS

RCMP officers were conducting a road block screening for impaired drivers in Lake Cowichan. Mr. Boyd was stopped and arrested for possession of marihuana when the officer noted the smell of freshly burnt marihuana as he stood next to the open driver’s door window. Mr. Boyd was acquitted at trial as the case turned on the fact that he was arrested due to the smell of "burnt" marihuana versus the smell of "vegetative" marihuana. The British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal. The factual findings in Mr. Boyd's case fell short of furnishing adequate grounds for an arrest. As always, such cases are going to be very much fact driven and if different circumstances objectively support an inference that criminal activity is occurring, a court will be entitled to find justifiable an arrest made pursuant to s. 495(1)(b). Further, an arresting officer can rely on inferences arising from observed facts to afford proper grounds for an arrest under that section, as long as the inference is one that is objectively supportable. R. v. Boyd, 2013 BCCA 19

RED HORSE BEER VS. BLACK HORSE ALE

The potential for the use of phrases such as “this is a horse of a different colour” or equine and beer jokes jump out at one. The Court will refrain from such frivolities for this is a case about beer and a case of beer is a serious matter. San Miguel Brewing International Limited v. Molson Canada, 2005, 2013 FC 156