R. v. MacInnis

R. v. MacInnis

The s.258(7) pre-condition for admissibility of the qualified technician's certificate was not proven (no proof of service), rendering the BAC certificate inadmissible and requiring dismissal of the 253(1)(b) charge; with no admissible BAC evidence and considering the brief observation period and alternative innocent explanations for driving the wrong way, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt on the 253(1)(a) charge, resulting in an acquittal.

Citation
2011 NSPC 70
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Joshua Payne MacInnis
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Ex Parte Trial/decision
Outcome
Count under s.253(1)(b) dismissed for inadmissible BAC certificate; count under s.253(1)(a) acquitted (not guilty) for failure of Crown to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.
Legal Topics
Operation of Motor Vehicle While Impaired, Blood Alcohol Concentration Admissibility, Certificate of Qualified Technician (s.258), Section 253 Criminal Code, Reasonable Doubt
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving Evidence Operation of Motor Vehicle While Impaired Blood Alcohol Concentration Admissibility Certificate of Qualified Technician (s.258) Section 253 Criminal Code Reasonable Doubt

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 3 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Joshua Payne MacInnis

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Ex Parte Trial/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved impairment of ability to operate a motor vehicle beyond a reasonable doubt
  2. 2 Whether the blood-alcohol concentration evidence (certificate) was admissible under s.258(1) and s.258(7)
  3. 3 Whether the arresting officer's testimony could substitute for the qualified technician's evidence/certificate

Ratio Decidendi

The s.258(7) pre-condition for admissibility of the qualified technician's certificate was not proven (no proof of service), rendering the BAC certificate inadmissible and requiring dismissal of the 253(1)(b) charge; with no admissible BAC evidence and considering the brief observation period and alternative innocent explanations for driving the wrong way, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt on the 253(1)(a) charge, resulting in an acquittal.

Court Disposition

Count under s.253(1)(b) dismissed for inadmissible BAC certificate; count under s.253(1)(a) acquitted (not guilty) for failure of Crown to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • Dismissed: Charge under s.253(1)(b) – case #2252041 (no admissible evidence of blood-alcohol concentration)
  • Declared Not Guilty: Charge under s.253(1)(a) – case #2252040 (Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt)