R. v. Orr

R. v. Orr

Judge found evidence of alcohol consumption (smell, glassy bloodshot eyes) and slurred speech but no evidence of unusual driving nor persuasive evidence of unsteady gait or balance; accordingly Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted on that charge. Separately, the judge found the 53–54 minute interval between arrival at the station and first breath test was reasonably explained by the accused exercising her right to telephone counsel and brief preparation time for the qualified technician, the testing occurred within the statutory two‑hour limit and was therefore 'as soon as practicable', so the s.253(1)(b) offence was...

Citation
2011 NSPC 2
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Brianna Irene Orr
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Acquitted of s.253(1)(a) (impaired driving); Convicted of s.253(1)(b) (care or control over 80 mg/100 ml)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Care or Control, Breathalyzer/asd Screening, 'as Soon as Practicable' Requirement, Right to Counsel (s.10(b))
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Constitutional Law Impaired Driving Care or Control Breathalyzer/asd Screening 'as Soon as Practicable' Requirement Right to Counsel (s.10(b))

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Brianna Irene Orr

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved impairment of ability to operate a motor vehicle under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether breath samples were taken 'as soon as practicable' under s.258/253(1)(b)
  3. 3 Admissibility and weight of officer testimony and hearsay about technician preparation

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found evidence of alcohol consumption (smell, glassy bloodshot eyes) and slurred speech but no evidence of unusual driving nor persuasive evidence of unsteady gait or balance; accordingly Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and the accused was acquitted on that charge. Separately, the judge found the 53–54 minute interval between arrival at the station and first breath test was reasonably explained by the accused exercising her right to telephone counsel and brief preparation time for the qualified technician, the testing occurred within the statutory two‑hour limit and was therefore 'as soon as practicable', so the s.253(1)(b) offence was...

Court Disposition

Acquitted of s.253(1)(a) (impaired driving); Convicted of s.253(1)(b) (care or control over 80 mg/100 ml)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted on the impaired driving charge contrary to s.253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.
  • Accused convicted on the care or control over legal limit charge contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.