In a trilogy of impaired driving cases the Supreme Court of Canada decided today, the appeals of two Alberta men who had demanded maintenance records for the breathalyzer instruments used following roadside pull-overs were dismissed, while the Quebec Crown‚Äôs appeal of a demand for disclosure was also dismissed.
The majority of the Supreme Court found that the maintenance records of breathalyzer machines were subject to a third-party disclosure regime, in its decisions in companion cases Kevin Patrick Gubbins v. Her Majesty the Queen and Darren John Chip Vallentgoed v. Her Majesty the Queen (combined in the Supreme Court‚Äôs decision as R. v. Gubbins).
‚ÄúThese reasons deal with two appeals in which the two trial judges came to different conclusions as to whether breathalyzer maintenance records should be disclosed by the Crown,‚ÄĚ Justice Malcolm Rowe wrote, with Chief Justice Richard Wagner and Justices Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Cl√©ment Gascon, Russell Brown and Sheilah Martin concurring.
‚ÄúOn the evidence in both cases, the defence failed to show that the maintenance records meet the requisite threshold for third party disclosure.‚ÄĚ
The appellants before the Supreme Court were each charged with impaired driving and with driving “over 80.” Their breath samples were obtained and analyzed using approved instruments and standard procedures. At each step of the process, the breathalyzers performed internal and external diagnostic tests to ensure accuracy of the results and generated printed results. The printouts indicated that the instruments functioned properly.
The Crown disclosed a standard package of documents related to the process. Both appellants requested additional disclosure, namely of the maintenance records for the breathalyzers used to obtain their breath samples. The Crown produced a basic maintenance log to Vallentgoed, but not all of the requested material. Vallentgoed‚Äôs application for an order compelling disclosure was dismissed and he was subsequently convicted of both charges; Gubbins was granted a stay of proceedings.
The Court of Queen‚Äôs Bench jointly heard appeals by Vallentgoed and by the Crown in Gubbins‚Äô case. It held that maintenance records are first-party records and should have been disclosed by the Crown, and upheld Gubbins‚Äô stay of proceedings and ordered a new trial for Vallentgoed. A majority of the Court of Appeal allowed the Crown‚Äôs appeals, holding that the maintenance records are third-party records that are not to be disclosed routinely. It reinstated¬†Vallentgoed‚Äôs¬†conviction, set aside Gubbins‚Äô stay of proceedings and remitted his case for a new trial.
The requested records ‚Äúare not in the possession or control of the prosecuting Crown,‚ÄĚ Justice Rowe wrote. ‚ÄúThey do not form part of the ‚Äėfruits of the investigation‚Äô; and the evidence in this case is that the maintenance records are not ‚Äėobviously relevant‚Äô to the cases of the accused Mr. Gubbins and Mr. Vallentgoed. It follows that the standard to be met is that set out in¬†O‚ÄôConnor; the maintenance records are subject to the third party disclosure regime.‚ÄĚ
A key objective in the appeal to the Supreme Court was ‚Äúto create some rules so that our disclosure obligations could be properly performed and executed,‚ÄĚ says Robert Palser of the office of the Attorney General of Alberta in Edmonton, who was a Crown counsel in the companion cases.
‚ÄúThe limits of that disclosure were in dispute,‚ÄĚ Palser says, with, in one case, ‚Äúevery record ever generated in the history of the instrument ‚Ä¶ since importation‚ÄĚ into Canada being requested. ‚ÄúThis case was not only about that specific issue, but this was an attempt to refine the disclosure obligations from Stinchcombe.‚ÄĚ
At issue for the majority was the purpose of the overall disclosure regime, ‚Äúwhich is to provide the accused with relevant information while preventing fishing expeditions and other dilatory requests for information,‚Äú Justice Rowe wrote.
In dissenting reasons, Justice Suzanne C√īt√© found that maintenance records should be subject to first party disclosure rules, as they are ‚Äúobviously relevant to rebutting the statutory presumption of the accuracy of an approved instrument established by¬†s.¬†258 of the¬†Criminal Code.
‚ÄúDisclosing maintenance records ensures that the defence has a minimum evidentiary basis upon which it may attempt to establish that an instrument was malfunctioning‚ÄĚ Justice C√īt√© wrote. ‚ÄúThis opportunity is guaranteed by the¬†Criminal Code and underlies the majority‚Äôs reasons in¬†St-Onge Lamoureux.‚ÄĚ
The majority disagreed. Deciding that maintenance records are subject to third-party disclosure ‚Äúdoes not put the constitutionality of¬†s. 258(1)¬†(c) [of the Criminal Code, which concerns evidence of the analyses of breathalyser machines and how they were functioning] in jeopardy,‚ÄĚ wrote Justice Rowe. ‚ÄúAs indicated in¬†St-Onge Lamoureux, a defence is not illusory simply because accused persons will rarely succeed in raising a reasonable doubt by using it ‚Ä¶ ‚Äú
Criminal defence lawyer Lisa J√łrgensen, of Cooper J√łrgensen in Toronto, notes that the outcome is consistent with what the Ontario Court of Appeal decided in R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832.
‚ÄúNow we have a clear answer from the Supreme Court that the Jackson model is the one to follow,‚ÄĚ she says. However, today‚Äôs decision ‚Äúplaces a difficult burden on criminal defendants, and shifts the burden [for disclosure] onto defendants, who have much more limited means.‚ÄĚ
The majority relied on the position of the Alcohol Test Committee of the Canadian Society of Forensic Science on the relevance of maintenance records, she says, which was of concern to Justice C√īt√©, who called ‚Äúthe relevance of maintenance records ‚Ä¶ a question of law‚ÄĚ and cautioned that only one expert opinion in the matter was before the Court.
‚ÄúUltimately, says J√łrgensen, ‚ÄĚthere‚Äôs no other way for defence to determine there‚Äôs a problem with a [breathalyzer] machine‚ÄĚ other than making application of the operating records for it.‚ÄĚ As well, she says, ‚Äúthird-party record applications, in practice, are not quick applications.‚ÄĚ First, defence counsel must set out what the likely relevance of the decision is, subpoena the third party recordholders, then bring the matter to court and argue in front of a judge, who (if the relevance test is satisfied) will get records from a third party, then decide if they are relevant to the case. It also involves retaining an expert witness for third-party record relevance, she adds.
Better, she says, to have records routinely collected and disseminated to the defence.
The respondent in the third case, Sa Majest√© la Reine c. Justine Awashish, successfully brought an application before the Court of Quebec to compel the Crown to inquire into the existence of certain documents relating to breathalyzer maintenance. The Crown then sought¬†certiorari¬†to quash the order, which was granted by the Superior Court. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the accused, holding that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, available only in narrow circumstances. The Supreme Court dismissed the Quebec Crown‚Äôs appeal of that decision today.
‚ÄúIn the Gubbins case, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of disclosure obligations with respect to maintenance records of breathalyzer instruments,‚ÄĚ a spokesperson for the Director of Criminal and Penal Prosecutions in Quebec, which was an intervener in Gubbins, wrote in an emailed statement to Legal Feeds.
‚ÄúIn Awashish, a distinct procedural issue arising from a similar context was decided and the Court limited the certiorari to jurisdictional errors. The DPCP acknowledges those decisions and hopes they will allow to¬†ensure efficient administration of justice.‚ÄĚ
First published at http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LegalFeedsBlog/~3/oGgDRwAy960/.
For more questions, answers and tips join Canada Immigration Forum REGISTER NOW
Need Immigration Help? Contact us below. ***We respond faster to people who post questions on the Forum. Be sure to post your question in the forum!!
***We respond faster to people who post questions on the Forum. Be sure to make at least one post now!! Join our Immigration Discussion Forum Now: REGISTER for FORUM