Ontario's Youth Courts hope to re-open about July 6, 2020 in some jurisdictions. When the Courts re-open, you will need a lawyer to help you navigate the new Court procedures that will minimize actual Court attendances for first appearance, disclosure, and set dates. Link to Ontario Court COVID-19 updates.
Call a Lawyer Now for a Brief Phone Consultation:
R. v. Campbell
44 C.C.C. (3d) 502
Section 234.1 on the Criminal Code allows a police officer to make a demand where the officer reasonably suspects that the person who "is driving a motor vehicle or has care or control of a motor vehicle" has alcohol in his body. In this case, the words "is" and "has" must have some degree of past signification to interpret the workds as having a strictly literal meaning applying only in the present tense could defeat the purpose of the provission and lead to absurd results. On the other had, the justifiable time lapse after the actual care and control has ended should be no longer than is reasonably neccessary to enable the police officer to carry out his duties under the provision. The demand should be made as soon as in reasobably possible in the circumstances. In this case it was clear that the accused did not have care or control of the motor vehicle at the time the demand was made. The officer had an opputunity of making the demand at the roadside but did not do so but rather embarked on a different course of investigation. At the time that the officer chaged his mind and did make the demand, it could not reasonably be said that the accused was in the care and control of hios motor vehicle.
Accused was driving a motorcycle when he was stopped because his tailight was out. The officer detected a strong odour of alcohol and issued a roadside demand which registered a fail. A breath demand was made and he was demaned a breath sample but Campbell did not respond. On the Certificate of Analysis there was no indication of the name of the solution or the manufacturer, just the Lot Number.
The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the alcohol standard solution be identified and correctly identified. That issue cannot be established unless the Crown establishes correctly the type of solution, the manufacture and the lot number. FAILURE TO PROVE THOSE ESSENTIALS WILL RESULT IN THE CERTIFICATE BEING INADMISSIBLE. THE CRIMINAL CODE REQUIRES THE CERTIFICATE TO PROVED THE MANUFACTURER ANDTHE LOT NUMBER.
The accused was charged with care or controle of a motor vehicle while his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and failing to comply with the roadside screening device demand. The police officer found the accused in his motor vehicle which was parked on a streen. At the time the vehicle was running but the accused was asleep in the frnt seat. The officer noted a strong odour of alcohol and based on other ovservations arrested the accused on a chaged of care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired. The officer then made a breathalyzer demand and took the accused to the police detachment. Upon arriving at the detachment the officer was informed that the breathalyzer technician was unabailable for one hour. At that time, the officer then decided to make a roadside screening device demand. The accused failed to comply with this demand. The accused's appeal from conviction for the offence was dismissed