R. v. Poirier

R. v. Poirier

Because s.254(2) requires the demand officer to form the opinion as to adequacy of breath samples and only an officer with special training/expertise may provide that opinion, the unqualified officer's opinions were inadmissible; delegation to an unqualified officer is not permitted and the Crown failed to prove use and proper operation of an Approved Screening Device or the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal.

Citation
2014 NSPC 28
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Joseph Jean Marie Poirier
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Verdict
Outcome
Acquitted (found not guilty)
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Approved Screening Device, Section 254(2)(b) Criminal Code, Expert Opinion Evidence, Delegation of Authority, Admissibility of Breath Sample Evidence
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Impaired Driving Approved Screening Device Section 254(2)(b) Criminal Code Expert Opinion Evidence Delegation of Authority Admissibility of Breath Sample Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Joseph Jean Marie Poirier

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the officer who makes the demand must personally form the opinion as to adequacy of breath samples
  2. 2 Whether an officer without special training can give admissible opinion as to adequacy of breath samples
  3. 3 Whether a qualified officer may delegate the s.254(2) demand and assessment to an unqualified officer

Ratio Decidendi

Because s.254(2) requires the demand officer to form the opinion as to adequacy of breath samples and only an officer with special training/expertise may provide that opinion, the unqualified officer's opinions were inadmissible; delegation to an unqualified officer is not permitted and the Crown failed to prove use and proper operation of an Approved Screening Device or the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, requiring acquittal.

Court Disposition

Acquitted (found not guilty)

Orders

  • Accused found not guilty
  • Accused discharged and released