R. v. Chaudhery

R. v. Chaudhery

The s.258(1)(c) prerequisites were satisfied because valid breath samples were taken not later than two hours after the alleged offence and there was no evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the approved instrument malfunctioned or was improperly operated; Exhibit VD1 therefore established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded 80 mg/100mL at the time of care or control, warranting conviction on s.253(1)(b), while the evidence of impairment supported a stay rather than conviction on s.253(1)(a).

Citation
2016 NSPC 3
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Abid Ali Chaudhery
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial
Outcome
Guilty on count alleging BAC over 80 mg/100mL (s.253(1)(b)); stay entered on impaired operation count (s.253(1)(a)).
Legal Topics
Care or Control, Per Se Over 80 Mg Offence, Impaired Operation, Breath Sample Presumption (s.258), Validity of Breath Samples, Expert Extrapolation
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Traffic Offences Constitutional (charter) Law Forensic Toxicology Care or Control Per Se Over 80 Mg Offence Impaired Operation Breath Sample Presumption (s.258) +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Abid Ali Chaudhery

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded 80 mg/100mL at the time of care or control (s.253(1)(b))
  2. 2 Whether the breath samples met the timing and evidentiary requirements of s.258(1)(c)
  3. 3 Whether an invalid breath attempt constitutes a 'sample' under s.258

Ratio Decidendi

The s.258(1)(c) prerequisites were satisfied because valid breath samples were taken not later than two hours after the alleged offence and there was no evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the approved instrument malfunctioned or was improperly operated; Exhibit VD1 therefore established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC exceeded 80 mg/100mL at the time of care or control, warranting conviction on s.253(1)(b), while the evidence of impairment supported a stay rather than conviction on s.253(1)(a).

Court Disposition

Guilty on count alleging BAC over 80 mg/100mL (s.253(1)(b)); stay entered on impaired operation count (s.253(1)(a)).

Orders

  • Count 2 (s.253(1)(b)) - conviction entered (guilty)
  • Count 1 (s.253(1)(a)) - stay of proceedings entered