Refusal to Give a Sample (Until December 13, 2018): Difference between revisions

From Criminal Law Notebook
m (Text replacement - "\nR v ([A-Z][a-z]+) \(" to " ''R v $1'' (")
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
No edit summary
(44 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
==General Principles==
==General Principles==
The offence under 254(5) states:
The offence under 254(5) states:
{{quotation|
{{quotation2|
254 <Br>...<Br>
254 <Br>...<Br>
'''Failure or refusal to comply with demand'''<br>
; Failure or refusal to comply with demand
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
<Br>...<Br>
<Br>...<Br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 254; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; 1999, c. 32, s. 2(Preamble); 2008, c. 6, s. 19.
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 254; R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; {{LegHistory90s|1999, c. 32}}, s. 2(Preamble); {{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 19.
|[http://CanLII.ca/t/7vf2#sec254 CCC]
|[{{CCCSec|254}} CCC]
|{{NoteUp|254|5}}
}}
}}


This is a single offence that can be committed in several different ways.<ref>
This is a single offence that can be committed in several different ways.<ref>
''R v Angrignon'' (2002), [http://canlii.ca/t/5ds1 2002 SKQB 477] (CanLII), 32 M.V.R. (4th) 196 (Sask. Q.B.){{perSKQB|Allbright J}} at p. 199:
''R v Angrignon'' (2002), [http://canlii.ca/t/5ds1 2002 SKQB 477] (CanLII), 32 M.V.R. (4th) 196 (Sask. Q.B.){{perSKQB|Allbright J}}{{atp|199}}:
("...s. 254(5) creates the single offence of non-compliance which may be committed either by failure or refusal, and the subsection creates only one offence, the gravamen of which is non-compliance with a demand under the subsection.")</ref>
("...s. 254(5) creates the single offence of non-compliance which may be committed either by failure or refusal, and the subsection creates only one offence, the gravamen of which is non-compliance with a demand under the subsection.")</ref>


{{quotation|
{{quotation2|
s.258<br>...<br>
s. 258<br>...<br>
'''Evidence of failure to give sample'''<br>
; Evidence of failure to give sample
(2) Unless a person is required to give a sample of a bodily substance under paragraph 254(2)(b) [ [[Screening Device|roadside screening test]] ] or subsection 254(3) [ [[Breath Sample Demand|demand breath sample within 3 hours]] ], (3.3) [ [[Breath Sample Demand|demand breath sample outside 3 hours]] ] or (3.4) [ [[Blood Sample Seizure in Impaired Driving Investigations|demand urine or blood sample]] ], evidence that they failed or refused to give a sample for analysis for the purposes of this section or that a sample was not taken is not admissible and the failure, refusal or fact that a sample was not taken shall not be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.
(2) Unless a person is required to give a sample of a bodily substance under paragraph 254(2)(b) {{AnnSec2|254(2)(b)}} or subsection 254(3) {{AnnSec2|254(3)}}, (3.3) {{AnnSec2|254(3.3)}} or (3.4) {{AnnSec2|254(3.4)}}, evidence that they failed or refused to give a sample for analysis for the purposes of this section or that a sample was not taken is not admissible and the failure, refusal or fact that a sample was not taken shall not be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.
<br>
<br>
'''Evidence of failure to comply with demand'''<br>
; Evidence of failure to comply with demand
(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) [ [[Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Refusal (Offence)|impaired operation]] ] or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) or (3) [ [[Impaired Driving, Over 80 and Refusal Causing Bodily Harm or Death (Offence)|impaired driving causing bodily harm or death]] ], evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.
(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) {{AnnSec2|255(1)}} in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) {{AnnSec2|253(1)(a)}} or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) {{AnnSec2|255(2)}} or (3) {{AnnSec2|255(3)}}, evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 {{AnnSec2|254}} is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.
<br>...<br>
<br>...<br>
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 258; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 61; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 1994, c. 44, s. 14(E); 1997, c. 18, s. 10; 2008, c. 6, s. 24.<br>{{Annotation}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. C-46}}, s. 258;
|[http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2#sec258 CCC]}}
R.S., {{LegHistory80s|1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.)}}, s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 61;
{{LegHistory90s|1992, c. 1}}, s. 60(F);
{{LegHistory90s|1994, c. 44}}, s. 14(E);  
{{LegHistory90s|1997, c. 18}}, s. 10;  
{{LegHistory00s|2008, c. 6}}, s. 24.
{{Annotation}}
|[{{CCCSec|258}} CCC]
|{{NoteUp|258|2|3}}
}}


The offence can be committed in two ways, either by ''refusing'' or ''failing'' to comply with the demand.<ref>R v MacNeil (1978) 41 CCC (2d) 46 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/hv0n9 1978 CanLII 2464] (ON CA){{perONCA|Dubin JA}} at para 6-7</ref>
The offence can be committed in two ways, either by ''refusing'' or ''failing'' to comply with the demand.<ref>
''R v MacNeil'' (1978) 41 CCC (2d) 46 (ONCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/hv0n9 1978 CanLII 2464] (ON CA){{perONCA|Dubin JA}}{{atsL|hv0n9|6| to 7}}</ref>


There remains conflicting case law on whether the offence is a [[Intention|specific or general intent offence]].<ref>
There remains conflicting case law on whether the offence is a [[Intention|specific or general intent offence]].<ref>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 42<br>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|42}}<br>
Specific intent cases:<br>
Specific intent cases:<br>
''R v Lewko'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5g0t 2002 SKCA 121] (CanLII), (2002), 169 CCC (3d) 359 (Sask. C.A.){{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}}<br>
''R v Lewko'', [http://canlii.ca/t/5g0t 2002 SKCA 121] (CanLII), (2002), 169 CCC (3d) 359 (Sask. C.A.){{perSKCA|Bayda CJ}}<br>
''R v Sullivan'', [2001] OJ No 2799 (C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Sullivan'', [2001] OJ No 2799 (C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
</ref>However, the more recent case law has largely fallen on the side of refusal being a general intent offence and so requires no more than a recklessness or knowledge of the mens rea.<ref>
</ref>However, the more recent case law has largely fallen on the side of refusal being a general intent offence and so requires no more than a recklessness or knowledge of the mens rea.<ref>
R v Buffalo [2002] AJ 1641 (QB){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Buffalo'', [2002] AJ 1641 (QB){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jvpj 2005 NSCA 32] (CanLII), [2005] NSJ 62 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Chipman JA}}<br>
''R v White'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jvpj 2005 NSCA 32] (CanLII), [2005] NSJ 62 (NSCA){{perNSCA|Chipman JA}}<br>
''R v Warnica'' (1980) 56 CCC (2d) 100 (NSCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd6z7 1980 CanLII 2897] (NS CA){{perNSCA|MacKeigan CJ}}<br>
''R v Warnica'' (1980) 56 CCC (2d) 100 (NSCA), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd6z7 1980 CanLII 2897] (NS CA){{perNSCA|MacKeigan CJ}}<br>
''R v Porter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frshc 2012 ONSC 3504] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}} at para 34<br>  
''R v Porter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frshc 2012 ONSC 3504] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}}{{atL|frshc|34}}<br>  
{{supra1|Butler}} at para 43-45<br>
{{supra1|Butler}}{{atsL|fx8hl|43| to  45}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 49: Line 58:


There is no requirement to have evidence as to the extent of chances available to a person who changes their mind.<ref>
There is no requirement to have evidence as to the extent of chances available to a person who changes their mind.<ref>
''R v Kitchener'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fscd1 2012 ONSC 4754] (CanLII){{perONSC|Di Tomaso J}} at para 23<br>
''R v Kitchener'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fscd1 2012 ONSC 4754] (CanLII){{perONSC|Di Tomaso J}}{{atL|fscd1|23}}<br>
''R v McNab'', [2001] OJ No 4738 (S.C.J){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v McNab'', [2001] OJ No 4738 (S.C.J){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Gutierrez'', [2001] OJ No 3659 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>  
''R v Gutierrez'', [2001] OJ No 3659 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>  
</ref> Moreover, where the refusal is unequivocal there is no obligation for a "last chance" warning.<ref>
</ref>  
{{supra1|Kitchener}} at para 31 citing ''R v Woods'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l27r 2005 SCC 42] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}} at 45</ref>
Moreover, where the refusal is unequivocal there is no obligation for a "last chance" warning.<ref>
{{supra1|Kitchener}}{{atL|fscd1|31}} citing ''R v Woods'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1l27r 2005 SCC 42] (CanLII){{perSCC|Fish J}} at 45</ref>


There is no requirement that the police officer explain all the consequences of non-compliance to a valid demand.<ref>
There is no requirement that the police officer explain all the consequences of non-compliance to a valid demand.<ref>
''R v Danychuk'', [2004] OJ No 615 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1gh3j 2004 CanLII 12975] (ON CA){{perONCA|Blair JA}} at para 2
''R v Danychuk'', [2004] OJ No 615 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/1gh3j 2004 CanLII 12975] (ON CA){{perONCA|Blair JA}}{{atL|1gh3j|2}}
</ref>
</ref>


It is unclear whether the authority to make a demand under s. 254(3) includes the authority to have the accused taken to the location of the device or whether the accused must choose to accompany them.<ref>
It is unclear whether the authority to make a demand under s. 254(3) includes the authority to have the accused taken to the location of the device or whether the accused must choose to accompany them.<ref>
see ''R v Mandryk'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs3b1 2012 ONSC 3964] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}}</ref> However, a failure or refusal to accompany the officer to the device may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>{{ibid}}</ref>
see ''R v Mandryk'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fs3b1 2012 ONSC 3964] (CanLII){{perONSC|Code J}}</ref>  
However, a failure or refusal to accompany the officer to the device may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>
{{ibid}}</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 66: Line 78:
==Refusal to Comply==
==Refusal to Comply==


The refusal to comply with the demand for a breath sample must be unequivocal.<ref>R v Desharnais [http://canlii.ca/t/2dm57 1988 ABCA 167] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} <br>
The refusal to comply with the demand for a breath sample must be unequivocal.<ref>
''R v Desharnais'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dm57 1988 ABCA 167] (CanLII){{TheCourtABCA}} <br>
''R v Cunningham'' (1989), 97 A.R. 81 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2dn0b 1989 ABCA 163] (CanLII){{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1) </ref>
''R v Cunningham'' (1989), 97 A.R. 81 (C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2dn0b 1989 ABCA 163] (CanLII){{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1) </ref>


In a refusal case (as opposed to a "failing" case), it is irrelevant whether or not the breathalyzer was functioning properly. <ref>''R v Ealey'', (1992), 101 Sask. R. 199 (Sask. Q. B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd0zl 1992 CanLII 7862] (SK QB){{perSKQB|Hunter J}}</ref>
In a refusal case (as opposed to a "failing" case), it is irrelevant whether or not the breathalyzer was functioning properly. <ref>
''R v Ealey'', (1992), 101 Sask. R. 199 (Sask. Q. B.), [http://canlii.ca/t/gd0zl 1992 CanLII 7862] (SK QB){{perSKQB|Hunter J}}</ref>
However, in a fail case, it may be a valid defence to show that the device or instrument was not properly functioning.<ref>
However, in a fail case, it may be a valid defence to show that the device or instrument was not properly functioning.<ref>
''R v Kosa'' (1992) 42 MVR (2d) 290 (ONCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Kosa'' (1992) 42 MVR (2d) 290 (ONCA){{NOCANLII}}<br>
cf. R v Young [2007] OJ 1776{{NOCANLII}}<br>
cf. ''R v Young'' [2007] OJ 1776{{NOCANLII}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


It is possible to refuse by body language such as turning away and closing eyes.<ref>
It is possible to refuse by body language such as turning away and closing eyes.<ref>
R v Page [1982] AJ 920, Page, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f0f4 1982 ABCA 230] (CanLII){{perABCA|Harradence JA}}</ref> Or refuse by silence.<ref>R v Lawson [2011] BCJ 1262 (SC), [http://canlii.ca/t/fm3zd 2011 BCSC 876] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Adair J}}</ref>
''R v Page'' [1982] AJ 920, Page, [http://canlii.ca/t/2f0f4 1982 ABCA 230] (CanLII){{perABCA|Harradence JA}}</ref>  
Or refuse by silence.<ref>
''R v Lawson'', [2011] BCJ 1262 (SC), [http://canlii.ca/t/fm3zd 2011 BCSC 876] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Adair J}}</ref>


Evidence should show that the device was working properly. This should include evidence that the device had been previously tested including the mouthpiece for obstructions. <ref>see R. v. Dolphin, [http://canlii.ca/t/1jch5 2004 MBQB 252] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Scurfield J}} at para 12 – police failed to give evidence of the testing of the machine</ref>
Evidence should show that the device was working properly. This should include evidence that the device had been previously tested including the mouthpiece for obstructions. <ref>
 
see ''R v Dolphin'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1jch5 2004 MBQB 252] (CanLII){{perMBQB|Scurfield J}}{{atL|1jch5|12}} – police failed to give evidence of the testing of the machine</ref>
A refusal which is equivocal and closely followed by an offer, then the offence is not made out.<ref>''R v Sagh'' (1981), 62 CCC (3rd) 521(Alta. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2bj6t 1981 CanLII 1210] (AB QB){{perABQB|Wachowich J}}</ref>
}}
A refusal which is equivocal and closely followed by an offer, then the offence is not made out.<ref>
''R v Sagh'' (1981), 62 CCC (3rd) 521(Alta. C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/2bj6t 1981 CanLII 1210] (AB QB){{perABQB|Wachowich J}}</ref>


It has been found that a reasonable excuse is not made out on the basis of officially induced error from an accused accepting the bad advice from duty counsel to refuse the breathalyser.<ref>
It has been found that a reasonable excuse is not made out on the basis of officially induced error from an accused accepting the bad advice from duty counsel to refuse the breathalyser.<ref>
''R v Hizsa'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpcpd 2011 ABPC 358] (CanLII){{perABPC|Fradsham J}} at paras 34-41</ref>
''R v Hizsa'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpcpd 2011 ABPC 358] (CanLII){{perABPC|Fradsham J}}{{atsL|fpcpd|34 to 41}}</ref>


In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the judge may consider the evidence of the accused's silence in response to a lawful demand.<ref>
In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the judge may consider the evidence of the accused's silence in response to a lawful demand.<ref>
Line 98: Line 116:
A failure to comply with the demand arises where a suspect makes either genuine or faked attempts at providing a sample.
A failure to comply with the demand arises where a suspect makes either genuine or faked attempts at providing a sample.


'''Feigning or Faking Attempts'''<br>
; Feigning or Faking Attempts
When an accused may be feigning his attempts to provide a sample, the "totality of the circumstances including any explanation advanced at the time of the attempt or in court must be considered."<ref>
When an accused may be feigning his attempts to provide a sample, the "totality of the circumstances including any explanation advanced at the time of the attempt or in court must be considered."<ref>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 41<br>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|41}}<br>
''R v Bijelic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnmf 2008 CanLII 17564] (ON SC), [2008] OJ No 1911 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Hill J}} at para 30<br>  
''R v Bijelic'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1wnmf 2008 CanLII 17564] (ON SC), [2008] OJ No 1911 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Hill J}}{{atL|1wnmf|30}}<br>  
''R v Porter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frshc 2012 ONSC 3504] (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 2841 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Code J}} at para 30 31<br>
''R v Porter'', [http://canlii.ca/t/frshc 2012 ONSC 3504] (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 2841 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Code J}}{{atsL|frshc|30| to 31}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


An intention to fake a sample must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
An intention to fake a sample must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.<ref>
''R v Sceviour'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2btdx 2010 NLCA 47] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Rowe JA}} at para 14</ref>
''R v Sceviour'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2btdx 2010 NLCA 47] (CanLII){{perNLCA|Rowe JA}}{{atL|2btdx|14}}</ref>


{{reflist|2}}
{{reflist|2}}
Line 112: Line 130:
==Change of Mind==
==Change of Mind==


A refusal almost immediately followed by a change of heart may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>''R v Cunningham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dn0b 1989 ABCA 163] (CanLII), (1989), 49 CCC (3rd) 521{{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1)</ref>
A refusal almost immediately followed by a change of heart may not amount to a full refusal.<ref>
''R v Cunningham'', [http://canlii.ca/t/2dn0b 1989 ABCA 163] (CanLII), (1989), 49 CCC (3rd) 521{{perABCA|Côté JA}} (2:1)</ref>


A shorter turn around time of 5 minutes can be seen as equivocal.<ref>''R v Hiebert'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpxs1 2012 MBPC 5] (CanLI){{perMBPC|Sandhu J}}</ref>
A shorter turn around time of 5 minutes can be seen as equivocal.<ref>
''R v Hiebert'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpxs1 2012 MBPC 5] (CanLI){{perMBPC|Sandhu J}}</ref>


Where there is a full refusal and after 15 minutes an offer to take the test, then the offence is made out. The two events are entirely separate.<ref>''R v Butt'' (1983), 44 Nfld. & PEIR 297{{NOCANLII}}</ref>
Where there is a full refusal and after 15 minutes an offer to take the test, then the offence is made out. The two events are entirely separate.<ref>
''R v Butt'' (1983), 44 Nfld. & PEIR 297{{NOCANLII}}</ref>


Where there is an unequivocal refusal, there is no requirement on the officer to offer a second chance at giving the ASD test.<ref>
Where there is an unequivocal refusal, there is no requirement on the officer to offer a second chance at giving the ASD test.<ref>
Line 128: Line 149:
{{seealso|Reasonable Excuse}}
{{seealso|Reasonable Excuse}}
Once the crown proves the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample.<ref>
Once the crown proves the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample.<ref>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 39<br>
''R v Butler'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fx8hl 2013 ONSC 2403] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fx8hl|39}}<br>
''R v Moser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p798 1992 CanLII 2839] (ON CA), (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.){{perONCA|Brooke JA}} at para 15, 18 and 42<br>  
''R v Moser'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1p798 1992 CanLII 2839] (ON CA), (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.){{perONCA|Brooke JA}}{{atsL|15|, 18}} and {{atsL-np|1p798|42|}}<br>  
''R v Rai'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8n8 2005 CanLII 14143] (ON SC), (2005), 17 M.V.R. (5th) 296 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Hill J}}<br>
''R v Rai'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1k8n8 2005 CanLII 14143] (ON SC), (2005), 17 M.V.R. (5th) 296 (S.C.J.){{perONSC|Hill J}}<br>
''R v Malicia'', [2004] OJ No 6016 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
''R v Malicia'', [2004] OJ No 6016 (S.C.J.){{NOCANLII}}<br>
Line 135: Line 156:


It is of some debate whether an explanation for not providing a sample is a reasonable excuse or a failure to prove the mens rea.<ref>
It is of some debate whether an explanation for not providing a sample is a reasonable excuse or a failure to prove the mens rea.<ref>
''R v Westerman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpm40 2012 ONCJ 9] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}} at para 16<br>
''R v Westerman'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpm40 2012 ONCJ 9] (CanLII){{perONSC|Durno J}}{{atL|fpm40|16}}<br>
{{supra1|Butler}} at para 42<br>
{{supra1|Butler}}{{atL|fx8hl|42}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


The burden of proving there was no reasonable excuse is simply on raising a doubt.<ref>''R v Goleski'',  [http://canlii.ca/t/fm85j 2011 BCSC 911] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Leask J}} appealed to [http://canlii.ca/t/g5bwd 2014 BCCA 80] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}</ref>
The burden of proving there was no reasonable excuse is simply on raising a doubt.<ref>
''R v Goleski'',  [http://canlii.ca/t/fm85j 2011 BCSC 911] (CanLII){{perBCSC|Leask J}} appealed to [http://canlii.ca/t/g5bwd 2014 BCCA 80] (CanLII){{perBCCA|Frankel JA}}</ref>


For a reasonable excuse to exist there must be something in the circumstances that renders "compliance with the demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve a substantial risk to the health of the person on whom the demand has been made".<ref>
For a reasonable excuse to exist there must be something in the circumstances that renders "compliance with the demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve a substantial risk to the health of the person on whom the demand has been made".<ref>
''R v Davidson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/56gv 2003 SKPC 101] (CanLII){{perSKPC|Halderman J}}{{at|15}}<br>
''R v Davidson'', [http://canlii.ca/t/56gv 2003 SKPC 101] (CanLII){{perSKPC|Halderman J}}{{atL|56gv|15}}<br>
''R v Nadeau'' (1974) 19 CCC (2d) 199 (N.B.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htwv5 1974 CanLII 1538] (NB CA){{perNBCA|Hughes CJ}} at p. 201<br>
''R v Nadeau'' (1974) 19 CCC (2d) 199 (N.B.C.A.), [http://canlii.ca/t/htwv5 1974 CanLII 1538] (NB CA){{perNBCA|Hughes CJ}}{{atp|201}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>


An offer to provide a sample through other means such as a blood sample is not sufficient to be a “reasonable excuse”.<ref>
An offer to provide a sample through other means such as a blood sample is not sufficient to be a “reasonable excuse”.<ref>
R. v. Taylor, [http://canlii.ca/t/1db5l 1993 CanLII 1603] (BC CA), (1993) BCJ No. 365 (CA){{perBCCA|Southin JA}}<br>  
''R v Taylor'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1db5l 1993 CanLII 1603] (BC CA), (1993) BCJ No. 365 (CA){{perBCCA|Southin JA}}<br>  
R. v. Weir, [http://canlii.ca/t/1mr4w 1993 CanLII 3153] (NS CA), (1993) NSJ No. 58 (CA){{perNSCA|Freeman JA}}</ref>
''R v Weir'', [http://canlii.ca/t/1mr4w 1993 CanLII 3153] (NS CA), (1993) NSJ No. 58 (CA){{perNSCA|Freeman JA}}</ref>


A person who refuses the breathalyser on the basis of advice from the duty counsel phone call cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. <ref>''R v Hizsa'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpcpd 2011 ABPC 358] (CanLII){{perABPC|Fradsham J}} at 34-41</ref>
A person who refuses the breathalyser on the basis of advice from the duty counsel phone call cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. <ref>
''R v Hizsa'', [http://canlii.ca/t/fpcpd 2011 ABPC 358] (CanLII){{perABPC|Fradsham J}} at 34-41</ref>


An accused may be permitted to refuse to provide a sample where the officer has shown some "malice to the person whose breath was to be tested or if he had threatened some unfairness or illegality". <ref>
An accused may be permitted to refuse to provide a sample where the officer has shown some "malice to the person whose breath was to be tested or if he had threatened some unfairness or illegality". <ref>
Line 156: Line 179:
</ref>
</ref>
The basis of the belief of the threat must be reasonable.<ref>
The basis of the belief of the threat must be reasonable.<ref>
{{ibid1|Dawson}} at para 12<br>
{{ibid1|Dawson}}{{atL|2f0xb|12}}<br>
</ref>
</ref>



Revision as of 03:51, 6 May 2020

General Principles

The offence under 254(5) states:

254
...

Failure or refusal to comply with demand

(5) Everyone commits an offence who, without reasonable excuse, fails or refuses to comply with a demand made under this section.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 254; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 1 (4th Supp.), ss. 14, 18(F), c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 60; 1999, c. 32, s. 2(Preamble); 2008, c. 6, s. 19.

CCC


Note up: 254(5)

This is a single offence that can be committed in several different ways.[1]

s. 258
...

Evidence of failure to give sample

(2) Unless a person is required to give a sample of a bodily substance under paragraph 254(2)(b) [roadside screening test] or subsection 254(3) [taking samples of breath or blood within 3 hrs], (3.3) [demand breath sample outside 3 hours] or (3.4) [demand urine or blood sample], evidence that they failed or refused to give a sample for analysis for the purposes of this section or that a sample was not taken is not admissible and the failure, refusal or fact that a sample was not taken shall not be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.

Evidence of failure to comply with demand

(3) In any proceedings under subsection 255(1) in respect of an offence committed under paragraph 253(1)(a) [impaired operation] or in any proceedings under subsection 255(2) [impaired driving causing bodily harm] or (3) [impaired driving causing death], evidence that the accused, without reasonable excuse, failed or refused to comply with a demand made under section 254 [taking samples of breath/blood] is admissible and the court may draw an inference adverse to the accused from that evidence.
...
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 258; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 36, c. 32 (4th Supp.), s. 61; 1992, c. 1, s. 60(F); 1994, c. 44, s. 14(E); 1997, c. 18, s. 10; 2008, c. 6, s. 24.
[annotation(s) added]

CCC


Note up: 258(2) and (3)

The offence can be committed in two ways, either by refusing or failing to comply with the demand.[2]

There remains conflicting case law on whether the offence is a specific or general intent offence.[3]However, the more recent case law has largely fallen on the side of refusal being a general intent offence and so requires no more than a recklessness or knowledge of the mens rea.[4]

  1. R v Angrignon (2002), 2002 SKQB 477 (CanLII), 32 M.V.R. (4th) 196 (Sask. Q.B.), per Allbright J, at p. 199: ("...s. 254(5) creates the single offence of non-compliance which may be committed either by failure or refusal, and the subsection creates only one offence, the gravamen of which is non-compliance with a demand under the subsection.")
  2. R v MacNeil (1978) 41 CCC (2d) 46 (ONCA), 1978 CanLII 2464 (ON CA), per Dubin JA, at paras 6 to 7
  3. R v Butler, 2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII), per Durno J, at para 42
    Specific intent cases:
    R v Lewko, 2002 SKCA 121 (CanLII), (2002), 169 CCC (3d) 359 (Sask. C.A.), per Bayda CJ
    R v Sullivan, [2001] OJ No 2799 (C.J.)(*no CanLII links)
  4. R v Buffalo, [2002] AJ 1641 (QB)(*no CanLII links)
    R v White, 2005 NSCA 32 (CanLII), [2005] NSJ 62 (NSCA), per Chipman JA
    R v Warnica (1980) 56 CCC (2d) 100 (NSCA), 1980 CanLII 2897 (NS CA), per MacKeigan CJ
    R v Porter, 2012 ONSC 3504 (CanLII), per Code J, at para 34
    Butler, supra, at paras 43 to 45

Valid Demand to Comply

See also Breath Sample Demand.

There is no requirement to have evidence as to the extent of chances available to a person who changes their mind.[1] Moreover, where the refusal is unequivocal there is no obligation for a "last chance" warning.[2]

There is no requirement that the police officer explain all the consequences of non-compliance to a valid demand.[3]

It is unclear whether the authority to make a demand under s. 254(3) includes the authority to have the accused taken to the location of the device or whether the accused must choose to accompany them.[4] However, a failure or refusal to accompany the officer to the device may not amount to a full refusal.[5]

  1. R v Kitchener, 2012 ONSC 4754 (CanLII), per Di Tomaso J, at para 23
    R v McNab, [2001] OJ No 4738 (S.C.J)(*no CanLII links)
    R v Gutierrez, [2001] OJ No 3659 (S.C.J.)(*no CanLII links)
  2. Kitchener, supra, at para 31 citing R v Woods, 2005 SCC 42 (CanLII), per Fish J at 45
  3. R v Danychuk, [2004] OJ No 615 (C.A.), 2004 CanLII 12975 (ON CA), per Blair JA, at para 2
  4. see R v Mandryk, 2012 ONSC 3964 (CanLII), per Code J
  5. , ibid.

Refusal to Comply

The refusal to comply with the demand for a breath sample must be unequivocal.[1]

In a refusal case (as opposed to a "failing" case), it is irrelevant whether or not the breathalyzer was functioning properly. [2] However, in a fail case, it may be a valid defence to show that the device or instrument was not properly functioning.[3]

It is possible to refuse by body language such as turning away and closing eyes.[4] Or refuse by silence.[5]

Evidence should show that the device was working properly. This should include evidence that the device had been previously tested including the mouthpiece for obstructions. [6] }} A refusal which is equivocal and closely followed by an offer, then the offence is not made out.[7]

It has been found that a reasonable excuse is not made out on the basis of officially induced error from an accused accepting the bad advice from duty counsel to refuse the breathalyser.[8]

In assessing the totality of the circumstances, the judge may consider the evidence of the accused's silence in response to a lawful demand.[9]

An unlawful refusal of the screening device will still amount to an offence even if the device is not at the scene.[10]

  1. R v Desharnais, 1988 ABCA 167 (CanLII), per curiam
    R v Cunningham (1989), 97 A.R. 81 (C.A.), 1989 ABCA 163 (CanLII), per Côté JA (2:1)
  2. R v Ealey, (1992), 101 Sask. R. 199 (Sask. Q. B.), 1992 CanLII 7862 (SK QB), per Hunter J
  3. R v Kosa (1992) 42 MVR (2d) 290 (ONCA)(*no CanLII links)
    cf. R v Young [2007] OJ 1776(*no CanLII links)
  4. R v Page [1982] AJ 920, Page, 1982 ABCA 230 (CanLII), per Harradence JA
  5. R v Lawson, [2011] BCJ 1262 (SC), 2011 BCSC 876 (CanLII), per Adair J
  6. see R v Dolphin, 2004 MBQB 252 (CanLII), per Scurfield J, at para 12 – police failed to give evidence of the testing of the machine
  7. R v Sagh (1981), 62 CCC (3rd) 521(Alta. C.A.), 1981 CanLII 1210 (AB QB), per Wachowich J
  8. R v Hizsa, 2011 ABPC 358 (CanLII), per Fradsham J, at to 41 paras 34 to 41{{{3}}}
  9. Lawson, supra
  10. R v Degiorgio, 2011 ONCA 527 (CanLII), per LaForme JA

Failure to Comply

A failure to comply with the demand arises where a suspect makes either genuine or faked attempts at providing a sample.

Feigning or Faking Attempts

When an accused may be feigning his attempts to provide a sample, the "totality of the circumstances including any explanation advanced at the time of the attempt or in court must be considered."[1]

An intention to fake a sample must be proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.[2]

  1. R v Butler, 2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII), per Durno J, at para 41
    R v Bijelic, 2008 CanLII 17564 (ON SC), [2008] OJ No 1911 (S.C.J.), per Hill J, at para 30
    R v Porter, 2012 ONSC 3504 (CanLII), [2012] OJ No 2841 (S.C.J.), per Code J, at paras 30 to 31
  2. R v Sceviour, 2010 NLCA 47 (CanLII), per Rowe JA, at para 14

Change of Mind

A refusal almost immediately followed by a change of heart may not amount to a full refusal.[1]

A shorter turn around time of 5 minutes can be seen as equivocal.[2]

Where there is a full refusal and after 15 minutes an offer to take the test, then the offence is made out. The two events are entirely separate.[3]

Where there is an unequivocal refusal, there is no requirement on the officer to offer a second chance at giving the ASD test.[4]

  1. R v Cunningham, 1989 ABCA 163 (CanLII), (1989), 49 CCC (3rd) 521, per Côté JA (2:1)
  2. R v Hiebert, 2012 MBPC 5 (CanLI), per Sandhu J
  3. R v Butt (1983), 44 Nfld. & PEIR 297(*no CanLII links)
  4. R v Komenda, 2012 BCSC 536 (CanLII) citing numerous cases on the issue
    cf. R v Domik (1979), 2 M.V.R. 301 (Ont. H.Ct.J.), aff’d [1980] OJ No 710 (CA)(*no CanLII links)

Reasonable Excuse

See also: Reasonable Excuse

Once the crown proves the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden shifts to the accused to establish on a balance of probabilities that there is a reasonable excuse for failing to provide a breath sample.[1]

It is of some debate whether an explanation for not providing a sample is a reasonable excuse or a failure to prove the mens rea.[2]

The burden of proving there was no reasonable excuse is simply on raising a doubt.[3]

For a reasonable excuse to exist there must be something in the circumstances that renders "compliance with the demand either extremely difficult or likely to involve a substantial risk to the health of the person on whom the demand has been made".[4]

An offer to provide a sample through other means such as a blood sample is not sufficient to be a “reasonable excuse”.[5]

A person who refuses the breathalyser on the basis of advice from the duty counsel phone call cannot amount to a reasonable excuse. [6]

An accused may be permitted to refuse to provide a sample where the officer has shown some "malice to the person whose breath was to be tested or if he had threatened some unfairness or illegality". [7] The basis of the belief of the threat must be reasonable.[8]

Reasonable excuses have been found when:

  • The technician had dirty hands and refused to clean them prior to administering the test.[9]
  • the accused had been previously assaulted by police and was reasonably fearful of further violence[10]
  • rough handling by police[11]
  • reasonable fear that an unsatisfactory result would incur violence by police[12]

Reasonable doubt about intention to refuse to provide a sample for the screening device has been found on the basis of the accused nervousness and anxiety.[13]

An honestly held religious belief cannot be used as a reasonable excuse.[14]

Reliance on poor legal advice is generally not a defence of officially induced error.[15]

  1. R v Butler, 2013 ONSC 2403 (CanLII), per Durno J, at para 39
    R v Moser, 1992 CanLII 2839 (ON CA), (1992), 7 O.R. (3d) 737 (C.A.), per Brooke JA, at 18 paras , 18{{{3}}} and 42
    R v Rai, 2005 CanLII 14143 (ON SC), (2005), 17 M.V.R. (5th) 296 (S.C.J.), per Hill J
    R v Malicia, [2004] OJ No 6016 (S.C.J.)(*no CanLII links)
  2. R v Westerman, 2012 ONCJ 9 (CanLII), per Durno J, at para 16
    Butler, supra, at para 42
  3. R v Goleski, 2011 BCSC 911 (CanLII), per Leask J appealed to 2014 BCCA 80 (CanLII), per Frankel JA
  4. R v Davidson, 2003 SKPC 101 (CanLII), per Halderman J, at para 15
    R v Nadeau (1974) 19 CCC (2d) 199 (N.B.C.A.), 1974 CanLII 1538 (NB CA), per Hughes CJ, at p. 201
  5. R v Taylor, 1993 CanLII 1603 (BC CA), (1993) BCJ No. 365 (CA), per Southin JA
    R v Weir, 1993 CanLII 3153 (NS CA), (1993) NSJ No. 58 (CA), per Freeman JA
  6. R v Hizsa, 2011 ABPC 358 (CanLII), per Fradsham J at 34-41
  7. R v Dawson, 1996 CanLII 11036 (NL CA), per Cameron JA
  8. Dawson, ibid., at para 12
  9. R v Prout, 1971 CanLII 391 (ON SC), (1971), 5 CCC (2d) 272 (Ont. Co. Ct.), per Jacob J
  10. R v Burkitt, [1972] 6 W.W.R. 251 (Man. Co. Ct.) (*no CanLII links)
  11. R v Pye (1993), 46 M.V.R.(2d) 181 (Alta. Q.B.)(*no CanLII links)
    R v Wall (1982), 17 M.V.R. 87 (Nfld. Dist. Ct.)(*no CanLII links)
  12. R v Gorrill (1980), 39 N.S.R.(2d) 533; 71 A.P.R. 533; 7 M.V.R. 141 (Co. Ct.)(*no CanLII links)
  13. R v Schwartz, 2009 ABPC 120 (CanLII), per Malin J
  14. R v Chomokowski (1973), 11 CCC (2d) 562, [1973] 5 W.W.R.184 (Man. C.A.), 1973 CanLII 1489 (MB CA), per Hall JA
  15. R v Pea, 2008 CanLII 89824 (ONCA), per Gillese JA
    R v Suter, 2015 ABPC 269 (CanLII), per Anderson J

Other Issues

Where the suspect offers to give a blood sample instead of giving a breath sample in the ASD or breathalyser, the officer is at liberty to seek a voluntary blood sample. The officer may only demand a blood sample in place of a breathalyser sample if the officer believes that the "suspect is incapable of providing breath samples".

The officer may also demand that that the suspect perform a physical coordination test in place of a roadside demand (s. 254(2)(a)).