R. v. Morrison

Parties

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Operation and Failure/refusal to Comply / Trial Decision

Legal Issues

1. 1 Whether a single uncertified breath reading of 130 mg/100 ml can be used to infer impairment absent foundation or expert evidence
2. 2 Whether Crown proved actus reus and mens rea for impaired operation under s.320.14(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt
3. 3 Effect of lost breath-room video on companion refusal charge and Charter concerns

Ratio Decidendi

The single uncertified breath reading of 130 mg/100 ml, absent foundational certificate or viva voce/expert evidence about the instrument and without interpretive expert evidence, only establishes that the accused had alcohol in her system and cannot be given significance as to impairment; assessing all evidence in totality, the Crown failed to prove the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired to any degree beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused is therefore acquitted on both counts (s.320.15(1) and s.320.14(1)(a)).

Court Disposition

Acquitted on both counts (s.320.15(1) failure/refusal to comply; s.320.14(1)(a) impaired operation)