THE BUSINESS SCHOOL

CENTRE FOR LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STUDIES

ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET
Assignment 3 – Case Brief

COURSE NAME Legal Research and Writing

COURSE CODE + SECTION PRLG 703 sec.002

SEMESTER Winter 2024

PROFESSOR’S NAME Tyler Murphy

MARKS ALLOTED 50

WEIGHTING 20%

DATE ASSIGNED Week 9

Week 10 Friday March 22, 2024
DATE DUE
by 11:59 pm
STUDENT NAME URVA SAIYED

STUDENT NUMBER 301378848

READ ALL INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

FORMAT REQUIREMENTS:
PAGE LENGTH Max 3 pages (excluding cover)

SPACING 1.5
FONT 12 pt
CITATION STYLE McGill

Name and Citation:

R v. Singh, 2014 ONCA 293

Facts:

Singh was convicted of driving over 80. Following his arrest at 2:01 AM, Singh arrived at the
police station at 2:22 AM. The first breath sample was taken at 3:22 AM, showing 170
milligrams of alcohol per 100 mL of blood, and the second sample at 3:50 AM, registering 160
milligrams of alcohol per 100 mL of blood. Singh contested the Crown's failure to establish that
the second sample was collected "as soon as practicable," citing a 28-minute unexplained
interval between samples.

Procedural History:

Singh was convicted under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for driving over 80. He
appealed, arguing that the second sample was not taken promptly as required by section 258(1)
(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code. The summary conviction appeal judge ruled in Singh's favor due to
insufficient evidence from the Crown. The Crown appealed this decision.

Issues:

1. Did the Crown sufficiently prove that the second breath sample was taken "as soon as
practicable"?

2. Was the trial judge's determination regarding the "as soon as practicable" requirement
accurate?

Decision:
The appeal was upheld. The Court affirmed the trial judge's interpretation and application of
the law, emphasizing that an exact justification for every minute of custody is unnecessary
under the "as soon as practicable" standard. The trial judge's finding that the second breath
sample was obtained promptly was upheld.

Ratio:

The "as soon as practicable" requirement dictates that breath samples should be administered
promptly in the context of the circumstances. The Crown is not obliged to provide a detailed
account of each minute of custody. The trial judge assesses, as a factual matter, whether the
tests were conducted promptly.

Reasons:

Singh was arrested for driving with excess alcohol, prompting a scrutiny of the circumstances
surrounding the collection of breath samples. Section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code
necessitates prompt breath sample collection following an alleged offence, a principle
fundamental to the Court's analysis.

During the trial, the defense challenged the admissibility of breath samples, arguing insufficient
evidence of prompt collection by the Crown. However, the Court underscored that the
legislative intent behind this provision was to streamline trials by admitting reliable evidence of
blood alcohol content. Consequently, demanding a detailed account of each minute of custody
would contradict this aim..

Moreover, the Court commended the trial judge's comprehensive review of the timeline,
acknowledging the Crown's absence of obligation to account for every moment of custody. The
trial judge's conclusion that breath samples were obtained "as soon as practicable" rested on a
holistic assessment of the circumstances, rather than any suggestion that the interval between
samples compromised the results' reliability.

The summary conviction appeal court erred in overturning the trial judge's decision, failing to
appreciate the nuanced application of legal principles and interpretation by the trial judge.
Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction, safeguarding the fairness of the judicial system
and endorsing the trial judge's well-reasoned decision.