Hyperlawhypertext legal database Rilling v. The Queen [1976] 2 SCR 183

← Cases

Rilling v. The Queen

[1976] 2 SCR 183 Court SCC Decision date 1975-06-26 English

PartiesRonald Joseph Rilling Appellant·Her Majesty The Queen Respondent

Counsel (4)
J.C. Prowse, for the appellant.
Y. Roslak, for the respondent.
Solicitors for the appellant: Prowse & Wiese, Edmonton.
Solicitor for the respondent: The Attorney General of Alberta, Edmonton.

Judges Laskin, Bora; Martland, Ronald; Judson, Wilfred; Spence, Wishart Flett; Pigeon, Louis-Philippe; Dickson, Robert George Brian; Beetz, Jean; de Grandpré, Louis-Philippe

Delivered by Majority

On appeal from Alberta

Subjects Criminal law

Contents

The judgment of Laskin C.J. and Spence and Dickson JJ. was delivered by

The Appellant, Ronald Joseph Rilling, was charged that on or about the 21st day of January, A.D. 1972 at the City of Edmonton, in the Province of Alberta, he did unlawfully drive a motor vehicle, having consumed alcohol in such quantity that the proportion thereof in his blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to Section 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
The hearing of the said charge was commenced before me on the 29th day of May, A.D. 1972 in the presence of the accused. The accused was represented by Counsel at the hearing.
Evidence for the Crown was given by the arresting officer, Constable William Hargarten of the Edmonton City Police, who stated inter alia that the accused blew into the breathalyzer machine and that he did not recall who was the operator of the machine.
The Crown applied to introduce as exhibits three Certificates, one of which was the Certificate of Analysis showing the alcohol content in the blood as provided by the provisions of the Criminal Code.
The appellants counsel admitted service of the Certificates upon the accused, but objected to the Certificate of Analysis pertaining to the alcohol content in the blood being admitted as evidence on the grounds that there was no evidence before the Court that the arresting Constable had any reasonable or probable grounds for believing that an offence under Section 234 of the Criminal Code as required by Section 235(1) of the Criminal Code, had been committed.
In my opinion there was no evidence adduced before the Court to show that the arresting Constable had any reasonable or probable grounds for believing that an offence under Section 234 of the Criminal Code had been committed.
Following the decision of Mr. Justice Neil Primrose of the Supreme Court of Alberta in the case of Regina vs. Joseph William McHarg, (unreported, a copy of

[Page 186]

which is attached) I allowed the said Certificate to be admitted as evidence.
One of the arguments set forth by counsel in his summation was that there was no evidence identifying the accused as being the person referred to in the said Certificate. This question was not brought up during the trial.
The said Certificate of Analysis showed that the result of the chemical analysis was 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and as a result, I found the accused guilty as charged.

Footnotes

  1. [1] [1973] 3 W.W.R. 319, 11 C.C.C. (2d) 285.
  2. [2] [1970] S.C.R. 777.
  3. [3] (1970), 1 C.C.C. (2d) 538.
  4. [4] (1971), 4 C.C.C. (2d) 327.
  5. [5] (1971), 3 C.C.C. (2d) 243.
  6. [6] (1971), 4 C.C.C. (2d) 252.
  7. [7] [1971] 1 W.W.R. 535.
  8. [8] [1971] 2 W.W.R. 639.
  9. [9] (1971), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 412.
  10. [10] (1971), 5 C.C.C. (2d) 155.
  11. [11] (1972), 6 C.C.C. (2d) 473.

Statutes and regulations cited