R. v. Lombard

R. v. Lombard

The Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and, although a valid ASD demand was administered by Cst. McGuire and intentionally refused, the Information charged refusal of a breath demand under s.254(3)(a)(i) which the Crown did not prove; the court therefore denied the Crown’s application to amend the Information under s.601(3) to substitute a different refusal offence and acquitted the accused on both charges.

Citation
2013 NSPC 133
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defence/accused: Ryan Lombard
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Judgment on Charges
Outcome
Acquitted of both charges (s.253(1)(a) impaired operation and s.254(5) refusal)
Legal Topics
Operation While Impaired S.253(1)(a), Refusal to Provide Breath Sample S.254(5), Approved Screening Device (asd) Procedure, Charge Drafting and Amendment S.601(3), Burden of Proof for Demands Under S.254
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Traffic/impaired Driving Operation While Impaired S.253(1)(a) Refusal to Provide Breath Sample S.254(5) Approved Screening Device (asd) Procedure Charge Drafting and Amendment S.601(3) Burden of Proof for Demands Under S.254

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

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Ryan Lombard

Defence/accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Judgment on Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a lawful demand under s.254 was made
  2. 2 Whether officers were qualified to give opinion evidence about ASD attempts
  3. 3 Whether the Information alleging refusal of a breath demand was adequate and whether Crown could amend under s.601(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove impairment under s.253(1)(a) beyond a reasonable doubt and, although a valid ASD demand was administered by Cst. McGuire and intentionally refused, the Information charged refusal of a breath demand under s.254(3)(a)(i) which the Crown did not prove; the court therefore denied the Crown’s application to amend the Information under s.601(3) to substitute a different refusal offence and acquitted the accused on both charges.

Court Disposition

Acquitted of both charges (s.253(1)(a) impaired operation and s.254(5) refusal)

Orders

  • Accused acquitted of charge under Section 253(1)(a)
  • Accused acquitted of charge under Section 254(5)