Judgment of the Court
J.:-Urgel R. Brunet was convicted by a magistrate on the charge that he
His appeal by trial de novo was dismissed and he appealed to the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan where the only point raised was that the conviction could not stand because the information charged two offences.
The Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan accepted this submission and held that the information was bad for duplicity, and that ss. 704(1) and 727(4) of the Criminal Code were not applicable. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
This Court granted leave to appeal on the following grounds:
(a) That the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in holding that duplicity is not a defect as contemplated by s. 727(4) and s. 704(1) of the Criminal Code;
(b) That the Court of Appeal for
Saskatchewan erred in law in quashing the conviction herein on the basis that the information is bad in law there being no such concept in criminal law;
(c) That the said Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan erred in law in holding that there was in fact duplicity in the information herein.
The only question that arises on this appeal is whether there was, in fact, duplicity in this information. In my opinion there was not. This information follows the wording in s. 222 of the Criminal Code. That section does not create one offence of driving while intoxicated and another offence of driving while under the influence of a narcotic drug. The essence of the offence is driving while in a certain condition, there being two different ways in which the prohibited condition may be brought about. The relevant provisions of the Criminal Code are:
Recent illustrations of the application of this principle are R. v. Schultz'; Cox and Paton v. The Queen ; and Kipp v. Attorney General for Ontario3. The case is distinct from Rex v. Archer.
I would allow the appeal and restore the conviction. There is provision for the respondent's costs in the order granting leave to appeal.
Appeal allowed. Solicitor for the appellant: The Attorney General for Saskatchewan, Regina.
Socilitor for the respondent: Koch, Meiklejohn & Scrivens, Regina.