R. v. Finlayson

R. v. Finlayson

The defence affidavit expert did not displace statutory presumptions nor raise reasonable doubt because his methodology had unreliable factual foundations and omitted use of the known breathalyzer result; the Crown expert employed a superior, more reliable back‑extrapolation methodology tied to the measured breath readings and other scene facts; accordingly the presumptions stand and, on the totality of the evidence, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded 80 mg/100mL at the time of driving, warranting conviction on s.253(b).

Citation
2002 NSPC 34
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defence/accused: Terrance Michael Finlayson
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Cc) / Trial Judgment Decision on Guilt
Outcome
Guilty on s.253(b) (over 80); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) (impaired driving)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer Evidence, Presumptions Under S.258(1), Expert Evidence Admissibility and Weight, Back‑extrapolation of Blood Alcohol
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Science Road Traffic Law Impaired Driving Breathalyzer Evidence Presumptions Under S.258(1) Expert Evidence Admissibility and Weight +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Terrance Michael Finlayson

Defence/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Cc) / Trial Judgment Decision on Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether presumptions in s.258(1)(c) and (d.1) apply or are displaced by defence evidence
  2. 2 Whether defence expert evidence constituted evidence to the contrary or tended to show BAC was below limit at time of driving
  3. 3 Assessment of admissibility, reliability and weight of competing expert opinions

Ratio Decidendi

The defence affidavit expert did not displace statutory presumptions nor raise reasonable doubt because his methodology had unreliable factual foundations and omitted use of the known breathalyzer result; the Crown expert employed a superior, more reliable back‑extrapolation methodology tied to the measured breath readings and other scene facts; accordingly the presumptions stand and, on the totality of the evidence, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded 80 mg/100mL at the time of driving, warranting conviction on s.253(b).

Court Disposition

Guilty on s.253(b) (over 80); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) (impaired driving)

Orders

  • Conviction entered on charge under s.253(b) Criminal Code (operation while blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mg/100mL)
  • Stay of proceedings entered on charge under s.253(a) Criminal Code (impaired operation)