R v Odgers

R. v. Odgers

2009 ONCJ 287
Ontario Court of Justice (East Region) — Justice Robert N. Fournier | May 11, 2009

Background

On January 14, 2006, Patricia Ann Odgers had lunch at Kelsey's Restaurant in Ottawa with her common-law partner William Sherring. According to Sherring's testimony, Odgers consumed "several glasses of liquor over the two hours" they spent there. Around 2:00 PM, they left the restaurant together — Sherring went into the LCBO while Odgers was supposed to go to Staples. Instead, she drove away with their car, leaving him stranded.

Around 3:00 PM, Odgers was involved in a minor collision at the intersection of Merrivale and Viewmount. She had advanced into the intersection to make a left turn, but when the light turned red and traffic blocked her path, she began reversing — backing into the vehicle behind her. When police arrived, they found Odgers still in the driver's seat with slurred speech, a strong odour of alcohol on her breath, and documents strewn across her front seat. She was so unsteady on her feet that officers had to physically support her while crossing the street to their cruiser.

Issues

1. Did the officers have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Odgers and demand breath samples?
2. Was Odgers' ability to drive impaired by alcohol at the time of the incident?
3. Could expert evidence extrapolate her blood alcohol level back to the time of driving?

The Impairment Evidence

The court found overwhelming evidence of impairment. Three officers observed slurred speech, a strong alcohol odour, confusion, and significant unsteadiness requiring physical assistance. Odgers had abandoned her partner at the mall, caused an accident by backing into another vehicle, and lost control of her bodily functions during transport (defecating in the police cruiser). At the station two hours later, she was still unsteady, had glassy and dilated pupils, and the intoxilyzer technician described her impairment as "obvious."

The defence challenged the officers' notes and suggested alternative explanations — icy conditions, a chronic leg injury, contact lenses causing glassy eyes. Justice Fournier rejected these arguments, finding the officers credible and their observations corroborated by multiple witnesses. The road conditions were described as "wet but not slippery," and Odgers never disclosed any leg condition until after arrival at the station.

The Expert Evidence Ruling

Forensic toxicologist Brian Hodgson testified that based on breath test results of 221 and 216 mg%, Odgers' blood alcohol level at the time of driving would have been between 232-254 mg% — roughly three times the legal limit of 80 mg%. The defence argued the Crown hadn't proven key assumptions like the absence of "bolus drinking" (rapid consumption of large amounts just before driving).

Justice Fournier ruled the expert evidence admissible, taking judicial notice that normal people don't engage in bolus drinking and finding slight circumstantial evidence against it (Odgers had left the restaurant around 2:00 PM for a 3:00 PM incident). He also made a controversial ruling that courts can take judicial notice that elevated blood alcohol levels impair driving ability, calling it "an irrefutable fact of science" after 50 years of expert testimony on the subject.

Key Takeaway

Multiple corroborating signs of impairment create an overwhelming case that's virtually impossible to defend.

This case shows how impaired driving prosecutions build on the totality of evidence — not just breathalyzer results, but observations of speech, balance, behaviour, and decision-making. When several officers observe consistent signs of impairment, and those observations are supported by objective evidence like causing an accident, the defence faces an uphill battle.