IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Citation: R. v. Doyle, 2009 NSPC 71
Date: November 17, 2009
Docket #: 1930730/731
Registry: Sydney
Between:
The Queen
v.
Elizabeth Ann Doyle
_________________________________________________________________
LIBRARY HEADING
_________________________________________________________________
Judge: A.P. Ross
Oral Decision: November 17th, 2009
Written Decision: March 2nd, 2010
Summary: The accused drove her vehicle off the road for no apparent reason. She climbed out of the car. A bystander assisted her to the nearby shoulder and coaxed her to lie down. An ambulance arrived about ten minutes later. They applied a neck collar, placed her on a stretcher and put her in the ambulance. She complained of a sore leg. A police officer who arrived in the midst of this procedure formed the opinion that the accused had been drinking. He went inside the ambulance with the accused and made a demand for blood samples while still at the scene. The accused refused to comply.
Issue: Where the circumstances known to the officer such that it was impracticable to obtain breath samples, thus justifying a blood demand?
Result: The blood demand was invalid. Refusal did not constitute an offence. The accused was found not guilty.
What constitutes a proper basis for the “impracticable of obtain a sample of breath” requirement is considered. The significance of, and the implications for police practice and medical practice are discussed.
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT’S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.