R. v. Landrie, 2016 ONSC 2131

Case Summary

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving over 80, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and engaged in speculative reasoning to reconcile conflicting timelines provided by police officers and a tow truck driver. The appellant contended there was an unexplained 14-minute delay, rendering the breath samples not taken 'as soon as practicable'. The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error, properly applied the law, and reasonably concluded that the discrepancies were due to asynchronous timepieces and that the police acted reasonably.

CITATION: R. v. Landrie, 2016 ONSC 2131

COURT FILE NO.: 13-0112

DATE: 20160330

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Respondent

– and –

GERALD LANDRIE

Appellant

Moiz Karimjee, for the Respondent

Matthew B. Day, for the Appellant

HEARD: February 10, 2016

REASONS FOR decision

Beaudoin J.

The Nature of the Appeal

[1] On January 14, 2015, the Appellant was convicted under paragraph 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of having care or control of a motor vehicle having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in his blood exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood. The prosecution relied on the presumption of identity in section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had been compelled to provide breath samples to an approved instrument “as soon as practicable” after the alleged offence.

[2] The Appellant maintains that the prosecution’s witnesses provided inconsistent evidence about the timing of the investigative events and that within this internally inconsistent record, there was an unexplained 14 minute delay. The Appellant submits that the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and engaged in speculative reasoning thereby reconciling the conflicting timelines and finding only the six minute period of unexplained delay. The Appellant submits that this misapprehension and speculation constitute a palpable and overriding error leading to an unreasonable verdict under subparagraph 686(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

[

R. v. Landrie, 2016 ONSC 2131

Case Summary

The Nature of the Appeal

Judge

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Issues

Statutory Provisions 3

Legal Tests 2

Legislation 1