Serving Canada's Legal Community Since 1983  
RSS Feed RSS Feed
This Week's Issue:

Want to learn more about this week's issue?

Legal Update Services

Click on the links above to view recent decisions from the Supreme Court of Canada and summaries for noteworthy cases from across the country.

LAW/NET Case Summary

Digest: R. v. McLachlan


[2017] O.J. No. 1086

Ontario Superior Court of Justice
M.R. Labrosse J.


March 3, 2017.
(48 paras.)


   Criminal law — Criminal Code offences — Offences against person and reputation — Motor vehicles — Impaired driving or driving over the legal limit — Appeal by Crown from acquittal dismissed — Police arrested accused for impaired driving — At detachment, qualified breath technician required accused to stand on scale for purpose of obtaining weight to allow toxicologist to combat bolus drinking defence — Trial judge correctly found technician's conduct breached accused's s. 8 Charter rights — No statutory authority existed for demand — Accused was not cautioned prior to demand — Charter breach demonstrated ignorance of scope of police authority and had significant impact on accused's Charter-protected interests — Trial judge did not err in excluding evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of Charter.

   Criminal law — Powers of search and seizure — Search — Scope of power — Appeal by Crown from acquittal dismissed — Police arrested accused for impaired driving — At detachment, qualified breath technician required accused to stand on scale for purpose of obtaining weight to allow toxicologist to combat bolus drinking defence — Trial judge correctly found technician's conduct breached accused's s. 8 Charter rights — No statutory authority existed for demand — Accused was not cautioned prior to demand — Charter breach demonstrated ignorance of scope of police authority and had significant impact on accused's Charter-protected interests — Trial judge did not err in excluding evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of Charter.

   Criminal law — Constitutional issues — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Legal rights — Protection against unreasonable search and seizure — Remedies for denial of rights — Specific remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Appeal by Crown from acquittal dismissed — Police arrested accused for impaired driving — At detachment, qualified breath technician required accused to stand on scale for purpose of obtaining weight to allow toxicologist to combat bolus drinking defence — Trial judge correctly found technician's conduct breached accused's s. 8 Charter rights — No statutory authority existed for demand — Accused was not cautioned prior to demand — Charter breach demonstrated ignorance of scope of police authority and had significant impact on accused's Charter-protected interests — Trial judge did not err in excluding evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of Charter.

   Appeal by the Crown from the acquittal of the accused, McLachlan, for impaired driving. The accused was arrested after she failed a roadside impaired driving test. She provided two breath samples at the detachment indicating a blood-alcohol level of approximately twice the legal limit. The breath samples were taken more than two hours after the accused's arrest due to delays at the detachment. In accordance with normal practice, the qualified breath technician required the accused to stand on a scale in order to provide her weight. Knowledge of the accused's weight aided a toxicologist in forming an expert opinion that no bolus drinking had occurred. The trial judge found that the police action of requiring the accused to stand on a scale constituted an illegal search that breached her s. 8 Charter rights. The evidence was excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in the accused's acquittal. The Crown appealed.

   HELD: Appeal dismissed. Several factors observed by police raised the possibility the accused had consumed alcohol in her vehicle or immediately before she commenced driving. The finding that bolus drinking was at issue was based on the totality of the evidence, did not involve speculation, and was entitled to deference. The trial judge correctly concluded the police conduct in compelling the accused to be weighed breached her s. 8 Charter rights. There was no statutory authorization for the breath technician's demand to the accused to provide her weight by standing on a scale. If such information was crucial to processing by police, Parliament would have expressly included the authority with other legislative police powers. Police did not caution the accused prior to requiring her to stand on the scale in a manner that would have permitted her to obtain legal advice related to the demand. The breach of the accused's rights demonstrated an ignorance of the scope of police authority and had a significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected rights. The trial judge did not err in applying the Grant analysis to exclude the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.