A North Bay woman who drove impaired due to a combination of prescription medication and a sudden gastrointestinal illness has won an appeal of her impaired driving conviction.
While the trial judge ruled that the impairment was due to the combination of the medication and a gastrointestinal illness, he failed to state whether he also determined that she had decided to drive even after she realized that she was impaired.
The incident took place Sept. 24, 2020, when North Bay police received a call about a suspected impaired driver.
“This was after observing a pickup truck driving erratically, stopping at green lights for extended periods of time for no apparent reason, driving very slowly, driving into the oncoming lane, driving through red lights, swerving over the median centre of the road and stopping in the middle of the road for no apparent reason,” the appeals court decision said.
“At one point (the caller) observed the vehicle proceed through a red light, narrowly missing another vehicle.”
Police arrived soon after and saw the vehicle try to pull into the parking lot of a gas station.
“After pulling partially into the parking lot, the vehicle then backed into traffic and proceeded northbound at a slow rate of speed,” the decision said.
Drove through red light
“After observing the vehicle proceed through a red light, the officer conducted a traffic stop and stopped the vehicle at the Tim Hortons/Wendy’s parking lot off Lakeshore Drive.”
Police spoke to the driver, Ann Marie Ahola, who was clearly disoriented.
“She was rolling windows up and down and was grabbing at things inside the vehicle,” the court said.
“She didn’t seem to understand what she was being asked to do. (Const. Anthony) Malden smelled a strong odour of vomit coming (from) the vehicle and observed a large amount of vomit on the outside of the vehicle and on the side steps of the truck. The appellant was sweating heavily.”
While she hadn’t consumed alcohol, the woman said she had taken three clonazepam tablets and half a bottle of methadone. Because of her condition, an ambulance was called and she was assessed by paramedics at the scene, who determined she didn’t need to go to the hospital.
However, her condition got worse at police headquarters and a drug recognition expert concluded he would not be able to evaluate her. She was then taken to hospital, where a blood sample was taken and sent to the Centre for Forensic Sciences for testing.
Methadone, clonazepam
A toxicologist for the centre, Randal Warren, testified that the blood sample showed the presence of several substances, including methadone and clonazepam.
Both drugs have the potential to cause someone to become drowsy and dizzy, impairing their ability to drive, but the amount found in Ahola’s system was also consistent with someone who had been prescribed the medication.
“Warren testified that symptoms such as being disoriented, head nodding, starting to fall asleep, not comprehending questions and being unsteady on one’s feet, are classic signs of intoxication associated with central nervous depressant drugs,” the court decision said.
“Laboured breathing is also a classic sign of opioid intoxication. Vomiting could be associated with not tolerating a drug well. Sweating is typically more associated with a stimulant drug.”
But he also “testified that studies cannot link impairment to a specific level of a drug in one’s system.”
Warren also said that prolonged use of the meds tends to increase tolerance and reduce the chance of impairing the ability to drive.
Felt extremely sick
In her testimony, Ahola said she began feeling sick after babysitting. Symptoms got much worse when she began to drive and she had to pull over to vomit.
“She suspected she had had gastroenteritis or a viral infection in her stomach,” the court decision said.
“She testified that at the time, she was prescribed methadone. She would take half during the day and half before she went to bed for pain relief. She testified that methadone did not affect her like it did when she first started taking it.”
She said she had been taking the medications for several years and “it never made her react in the way described in this case.”
After her arrest, she remained in hospital for a few days, where she was told that her illness was likely caused by “a viral gastroenteritis.”
The trial judge ruled that, while her illness may have made things worse, “the root cause was still the drugs.”
But the appeals court ruled that the decision raised doubts about whether the trial judge had determined that Ahola had decided to drive despite knowing she was impaired – what’s known as the ‘mens rea.’
“Was the trial judge satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that either (a) the appellant was aware of, or reckless as to, whether those drugs could cause impairment when she consumed them?” the appeals court said.
“Or (b) even if she was not aware of their impairing effect, did she become aware that they had caused her to be impaired and chose to operate a conveyance despite this? While both of these conclusions were reasonably available to the trial judge on the evidence before him, a literal and functional review of the trial judge’s reasons do not indicate whether they were resolved.”
Since the trial judge’s reasons are unclear when it comes to the issue of ‘mens rea,’ the appeal is allowed and a new trial must take place.
Read the full decision here.
