R. v. Renouf (A.),

R. v. Renouf (A.) (2013), 413 Sask.R. 226 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. MR.049

Her Majesty the Queen v. Albert Renouf

(Information No. 37252497; 2013 SKPC 34)

Indexed As: R. v. Renouf (A.)

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Gordon, P.C.J.

February 26, 2013.

Summary:

The accused was charged with impaired driving. He alleged that the identification evidence was insufficient to convict, and that his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights had been breached.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court convicted the accused. The Crown had proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt and there were no Charter breaches.

Civil Rights - Topic 1508

Property - General principles - Expectation of privacy - [See Police - Topic 3105 ].

Civil Rights - Topic 3604

Detention and imprisonment - Detention - What constitutes detention - [See Police - Topic 3105 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1362

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Evidence and proof - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5253 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Demand - Reasonable grounds - A police officer was dispatched to investigate a complaint of a truck that was driving erratically - She located the unoccupied truck behind an apartment building - A tenant indicated that the truck belonged to the accused and directed the officer to his apartment - The officer went to the accused's apartment and asked if he owned the truck - The accused responded that he had just been to the liquor store and had had way too much to drink - He produced identification and registration - The officer observed that the accused had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and alcohol on his breath - She made an "informal request" for the accused to provide an approved screening device (ASD) sample and asked him to accompany her to the police vehicle - The officer read an ASD demand in the police vehicle - The accused failed and was arrested for impaired driving - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the officer could have made a breathalyzer demand in the police vehicle, rather than an ASD demand - The officer believed that she had to proceed with the ASD demand because she did not have a personal observation of the accused's driving actions - This belief was incorrect and an ASD result would not have given her any more information about her concern - The information obtained from third parties could have been used as the basis for making a breathalyzer demand - See paragraph 43.

Criminal Law - Topic 1386.2

Offences against person and reputation - Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Roadside screening test - Time and place for - [See Police - Topic 3105 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5253

Evidence and witnesses - Identification - Proof of - A person (Kitchen) called 911 to report a truck that was driving erratically - Kitchen followed the truck until he saw a police vehicle - He indicated to police the direction the truck had gone - A police officer located the unoccupied truck behind an apartment building - A tenant indicated that the truck belonged to the accused (Renouf) and directed the officer to his apartment - The officer knocked on the door - Renouf answered - The officer asked if Renouf owned the truck and advised him that she was investigating a possible impaired driver - Renouf responded that he had just been to the liquor store and had had way too much to drink - He produced identification and registration - The officer observed that Renouf had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and alcohol on his breath - Renouf subsequently failed a breathalyzer test and was charged with impaired driving - Kitchen testified that he had twice been able to see the driver's face, and that he had glasses and a beard - In court, Kitchen identified Renouf as "matching" the person who was driving the truck - Renouf alleged that the identification evidence was insufficient to prove that he was the driver - He also argued that the admissions of driving he made to the officer should not be admitted for the truth of their contents because a separate voir dire had not been held to determine voluntariness - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court convicted Renouf - Kitchen's evidence was insufficient to prove identification but the officer's evidence was sufficient and admissible - A voir dire had been held respecting the officer's evidence - It had been a global voir dire and was not restricted to Charter challenges - The defence had had the opportunity to canvass all issues respecting the admissibility of evidence and did not canvass the issue of voluntariness (likely because there was none to canvass) - Renouf was not under arrest or detained during the exchange at the doorway of his apartment - He had volunteered certain comments and produced his identification and registration - As a result, the officer was able to conclude that he was the driver of the truck - See paragraphs 11 to 17.

Criminal Law - Topic 5332

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Necessity and purpose of - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5253 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 5355

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Whether statement made freely and voluntarily - [See Criminal Law - Topic 5253 ].

Police - Topic 3105

Powers - Investigation - Impaired driving - A police officer was dispatched to investigate a complaint of a truck that was driving erratically - She located the unoccupied truck behind an apartment building - A tenant indicated that the truck belonged to the accused (Renouf) and directed the officer to his apartment - The officer knocked on the door around 3:00 p.m. - Renouf answered - The officer asked if Renouf owned the truck and advised him that she was investigating a possible impaired driver - Renouf responded that he had just been to the liquor store and had had way too much to drink - He produced identification and registration - The officer stepped about five feet into the apartment - She observed that Renouf had slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and alcohol on his breath - Renouf accompanied the officer to her police vehicle where she made an approved screening device (ASD) demand at 3:15 p.m. - A fail was recorded at 3:19 p.m. - The officer arrested Renouf and read him his Charter and police warnings - Renouf agreed to provide a breathalyzer sample at 3:22 p.m. and they immediately drove to the police station - While the officer was chatting with Renouf between the first and second tests, Renouf said that he had been on a binge and drank 24 beer in the previous two days - He was turned over to the breath technician at 4:02 p.m. - Renouf argued that the incriminating evidence had been obtained in violation of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found no Charter breaches and convicted Renouf - The officer had the right to enter the apartment building and approach Renouf's door - Renouf had no realistic expectation of privacy respecting the hallway area - The implied invitation to knock extended no further than was required to permit convenient communication with the occupant of the dwelling - The officer's purpose at the apartment was to communicate with Renouf - She was investigating an impaired driving offence that had occurred very recently - She had reason to believe that the offence had been committed by someone driving a specific truck which was now parked at the apartment building - She had received information that the truck's owner resided in Renouf's apartment - Renouf was not under arrest or detained during the exchange at the doorway of his apartment, during which he volunteered information that enabled the officer to form a reasonable suspicion that he had been the driver who was possibly impaired - The ASD demand was made forthwith - See paragraphs 18 to 46.

Police - Topic 3108

Powers - Investigation - Power to enter private property - [See Police - Topic 3105 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Grotheim (K.) (2001), 213 Sask.R. 141; 260 W.A.C. 141; 2001 SKCA 116, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Armbruster (D.R.), [2008] Sask.R. Uned. 97; 2008 SKPC 75, refd to. [para. 15].

R. v. Vu (D.A.) (1999), 121 B.C.A.C. 66; 198 W.A.C. 66; 1999 BCCA 182, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Petri (V.R.) (2003), 170 Man.R.(2d) 238; 285 W.A.C. 238; 2003 MBCA 1, refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Nguyen (T.V.) (2008), 462 A.R. 240; 2008 ABQB 721, refd to. [para. 20].

R. v. Hyde (M.L.) (2010), 483 A.R. 381; 2010 ABPC 30, folld. [para. 21].

R. v. Chomik (S.L.), [2011] A.R. Uned. 377; 2011 ABPC 152, refd to. [para. 21].

R. v. Evans (C.R.) et al., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 8; 191 N.R. 327; 69 B.C.A.C. 81; 113 W.A.C. 81; 45 C.R.(4th) 210, agreed with [para. 23].

R. v. LeClaire, 2005 NSCA 165, refd to. [para. 25].

R. v. Fowler (M.O.) (2006), 304 N.B.R.(2d) 106; 788 A.P.R. 106; 2006 NBCA 90, refd to. [para. 26].

R. v. Van Wyk (H.W.) (1999), 104 O.T.C. 161 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 28].

R. v. Simpart (J.D.) (2012), 411 Sask.R. 10; 2012 SKPC 184, refd to. [para. 31].

R. v. Storrey, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 241; 105 N.R. 81; 37 O.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 37].

R. v. Janzen (K.) (2006), 285 Sask.R. 296; 378 W.A.C. 296; 2006 SKCA 111, refd to. [para. 41].

Counsel:

Rob Parker, for the Crown;

Barry Nychuck, for the accused.

This matter was heard at Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, before Gordon, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 26, 2013.