Forthwith - Re: Meaning of: Difference between revisions
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
[12] The summary conviction appeal judge held that the trial judge erred in his application of the principles set out in <i>R. v. Woods, 2005 SCC 42, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205.</i><ref name="Woods"/> He found that the trial judge’s analysis “is far different from the analysis that Mr. Justice Fish makes in his definition or his finding that ‘forthwith’ means immediately or without delay.” The appeal judge ordered a new trial, from which the Crown seeks leave to appeal. | [12] The summary conviction appeal judge held that the trial judge erred in his application of the principles set out in <i>R. v. Woods, 2005 SCC 42, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205.</i><ref name="Woods"/> He found that the trial judge’s analysis “is far different from the analysis that Mr. Justice Fish makes in his definition or his finding that ‘forthwith’ means immediately or without delay.” The appeal judge ordered a new trial, from which the Crown seeks leave to appeal. | ||
[26] Woods confirms this and reasserts that the constitutional validity of s. 254(2) depends on its implicit and explicit requirements of immediacy. This immediacy requirement is implicit for the police demand for a breath sample and explicit for the mandatory response: the driver must provide a breath sample “forthwith”. <b><u>The term “forthwith” in s. 254(2), therefore, means “immediately” or “without delay” and indicates a prompt demand by the peace officer and an immediate response by the person to whom that demand is addressed:</b></u> see Woods, at paras. 13-14 and 44. However, in unusual circumstances “forthwith” may be given a more flexible interpretation than its ordinary meaning strictly suggests: see Woods, at para. 43. | |||
<ref name="Quansah">R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq6x2>, retrieved on 2020-12-01</ref> | <ref name="Quansah">R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq6x2>, retrieved on 2020-12-01</ref> | ||
Revision as of 01:02, 2 December 2020
R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 (CanLII)[1]
[12] The summary conviction appeal judge held that the trial judge erred in his application of the principles set out in R. v. Woods, 2005 SCC 42, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 205.[2] He found that the trial judge’s analysis “is far different from the analysis that Mr. Justice Fish makes in his definition or his finding that ‘forthwith’ means immediately or without delay.” The appeal judge ordered a new trial, from which the Crown seeks leave to appeal.
[26] Woods confirms this and reasserts that the constitutional validity of s. 254(2) depends on its implicit and explicit requirements of immediacy. This immediacy requirement is implicit for the police demand for a breath sample and explicit for the mandatory response: the driver must provide a breath sample “forthwith”. The term “forthwith” in s. 254(2), therefore, means “immediately” or “without delay” and indicates a prompt demand by the peace officer and an immediate response by the person to whom that demand is addressed: see Woods, at paras. 13-14 and 44. However, in unusual circumstances “forthwith” may be given a more flexible interpretation than its ordinary meaning strictly suggests: see Woods, at para. 43.
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/fq6x2>, retrieved on 2020-12-01
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 R. v. Woods, 2005 SCC 42 (CanLII), [2005] 2 SCR 205, <http://canlii.ca/t/1l27r>, retrieved on 2020-12-01
