R. v. Vanderbruggen, 2006 CanLII 9039 (ON C.A.)
[12] That leaves the question that is at the heart of this appeal—the meaning of as soon as practicable. Decisions of this and other courts indicate that the phrase means nothing more than that the tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances. See R. v. Phillips 1988 CanLII 198 (ON C.A.), (1988), 42 C.C.C. (3d) 150 (Ont. C.A.) at 156; R. v. Ashby reflex, (1980), 57 C.C.C. (2d) 348 (Ont. C.A.) at 351; and R. v. Mudry, R. v. Coverly reflex, (1979), 50 C.C.C. (2d) 518 (Alta. C.A.) at 522. There is no requirement that the tests be taken as soon as possible. The touchstone for determining whether the tests were taken as soon as practicable is whether the police acted reasonably. See R. v. Payne reflex, (1990), 56 C.C.C. (3d) 548 (Ont. C.A.) at 552; R. v. Carter reflex, (1981), 59 C.C.C. (2d) 450 (Sask. C.A.) at 453; R. v. Van Der Veen reflex, (1988), 44 C.C.C. (3d) 38 (Alta. C.A.) at 47; R. v. Clarke, [1991] O.J. No. 3065 (C.A.); and R. v. Seed, [1998] O.J. No. 4362 (C.A.).
[16] To conclude, these provisions, which are designed to expedite trials and aid in proof of the suspect’s blood alcohol level, should not be interpreted so as to require an exact accounting of every moment in the chronology. We are now far removed from the days when the breathalyser was first introduced into Canada and there may have been some suspicion and scepticism about its accuracy and value and about the science underlying the presumption of identity. These provisions must be interpreted reasonably in a manner that is consistent with Parliament’s purpose in facilitating the use of this reliable evidence.
Aucun commentaire:
Publier un commentaire