R. v. Goleski, 2015 SCC 6, [2015] 1 SCR 399

 

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Citation: R. v. Goleski, 2015 SCC 6, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 399

Date: 20150211 Docket: 35862

 

Between:

Grant Anthony Goleski

Appellant

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

Attorney General of Ontario and

Attorney General of Alberta

Interveners

 

Coram: Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

Reasons for Judgment: (paras. 1 to 2)

The Court

 

 

 

 

r. v. goleski, 2015 SCC 6, [2015] 1 S.C.R. 399

Grant Anthony Goleski                                                                                  Appellant

v.

Her Majesty The Queen                                                                              Respondent

and

Attorney General of Ontario and

Attorney General of Alberta                                                                       Interveners

Indexed as:  R. v. Goleski

2015 SCC 6

File No.:  35862.

2015:  February 11.

Present:  Abella, Rothstein, Cromwell, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Wagner and Gascon JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

 

                    Criminal law — Motor vehicles — Failure to provide breath sample — Burden of proof applicable to demonstration of “reasonable excuse” for refusal to provide breath sample — Accused bears persuasive burden of proving excuse — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 794(2) .

 

Statutes and Regulations Cited

Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 794(2) .

                    APPEAL from a judgment of the British Columbia Court of Appeal (Newbury, Frankel and Garson JJ.A.), 2014 BCCA 80, 307 C.C.C. (3d) 1, 64 M.V.R. (6th) 254, 10 C.R. (7th) 188, [2014] B.C.J. No. 347 (QL), 2014 CarswellBC 490 (WL Can.), setting aside the accused’s acquittal and reinstating his conviction.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                    Amandeep Jaswal, for the appellant.

 

                    Mary T. Ainslie, Q.C., and John Caldwell, for the respondent.

 

                    Philip Perlmutter and Karen Papadopoulos, for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario.

 

                    Matthew David Dalidowicz, for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta.

 

                    The following is the judgment delivered orally by

[1]                              The Court — In our view, the British Columbia Court of Appeal correctly concluded that s. 794(2)  of the Criminal Code , R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , properly interpreted, imposes a persuasive burden on the accused to prove an “exception, exemption, proviso, excuse or qualification prescribed by law”. We do not think it appropriate to deal with the new issues raised by the interveners.

[2]                              The appeal is dismissed.

                    Judgment accordingly.

 

                    Solicitor for the appellant:  Vincent Michaels Law Corporation, Vancouver.

 

                    Solicitor for the respondent:  Attorney General of British Columbia, Vancouver.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Ontario:  Attorney General of Ontario, Toronto.

 

                    Solicitor for the intervener the Attorney General of Alberta:  Attorney General of Alberta, Calgary.