R. v. Lamond

R. v. Lamond

Acquittal on impaired operation because reasonable doubt existed as to who was driving; conviction for refusal because the accused had no reasonable excuse for ceasing to provide breath samples after successfully providing two earlier samples, and the BAC evidence undermined her credibility and the veracity of her medical excuse.

Citation
2021 NSPC 9
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Jillian Lamond
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Operation and Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand / Trial Judgment (provincial Court)
Outcome
Acquitted on impaired operation (s.320.14(1)(a)); convicted of refusal to comply with breath demand (s.320.15(1)).
Legal Topics
Impaired Operation of a Conveyance (s.320.14), Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand (s.320.15), Drug Recognition Evaluation (dre), Credibility Assessment, Admissibility of Spontaneous Statements
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic / Impaired Driving Evidence Impaired Operation of a Conveyance (s.320.14) Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand (s.320.15) Drug Recognition Evaluation (dre) Credibility Assessment Admissibility of Spontaneous Statements

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Jillian Lamond

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Operation and Refusal to Comply With Breath Demand / Trial Judgment (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was operating the vehicle and, if so, whether she was impaired
  2. 2 Whether the accused had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide the required second breath sample

Ratio Decidendi

Acquittal on impaired operation because reasonable doubt existed as to who was driving; conviction for refusal because the accused had no reasonable excuse for ceasing to provide breath samples after successfully providing two earlier samples, and the BAC evidence undermined her credibility and the veracity of her medical excuse.

Court Disposition

Acquitted on impaired operation (s.320.14(1)(a)); convicted of refusal to comply with breath demand (s.320.15(1)).

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of impaired operation contrary to s.320.14(1)(a)
  • Accused found guilty of refusal to comply with a breath demand contrary to s.320.15(1)