R. v. Pottie

R. v. Pottie

Breath readings of 170 mg% and 160 mg% were properly obtained and, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, the s.258(1)(c) presumption applies; the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC at the time of care or control was not over .08 due to voluntary consumption and failed to prove non‑insane automatism on the balance of probabilities; accordingly convicted on s.253(b) and second count stayed.

Citation
2009 NSPC 57
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jeanette Marie Pottie
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code) / Provincial Court Decision (trial)
Outcome
Convicted on s.253(b) (driving with BAC over .08); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) (impaired driving) count
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Care or Control, Breath Test Presumption (s.258(1)(c)), Automatism (non‑insane), Voluntariness of Consumption, Expert Evidence Weight
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Toxicology Impaired Driving Care or Control Breath Test Presumption (s.258(1)(c)) Automatism (non‑insane) Voluntariness of Consumption +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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Jeanette Marie Pottie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving (s.253 Criminal Code) / Provincial Court Decision (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defence raised 'evidence to the contrary' to rebut s.258(1)(c) presumption from breath tests
  2. 2 Whether alleged involuntary ingestion of a drug rendered subsequent alcohol consumption involuntary
  3. 3 Whether the accused acted involuntarily (non‑insane automatism) when driving

Ratio Decidendi

Breath readings of 170 mg% and 160 mg% were properly obtained and, absent sufficient evidence to the contrary, the s.258(1)(c) presumption applies; the defence failed to raise a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC at the time of care or control was not over .08 due to voluntary consumption and failed to prove non‑insane automatism on the balance of probabilities; accordingly convicted on s.253(b) and second count stayed.

Court Disposition

Convicted on s.253(b) (driving with BAC over .08); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) (impaired driving) count

Orders

  • Conviction entered on count contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code
  • Stay of proceedings entered on count contrary to s.253(a) of the Criminal Code