R. v. Boudreau

R. v. Boudreau

The blood analysis was excluded because the officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds at the time to believe the accused was incapable of providing a breath sample or that a breath sample was impracticable, so the s.258 presumption could not be relied upon; however, independent admissible evidence of impairment from civilian, police and medical witnesses proved the s.253(a) impaired driving offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Citation
2004 NSPC 32
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Dennis Darrell Boudreau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 January 2004
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Sentencing/decision
Outcome
Count alleging excess blood alcohol (s.253(b)) not proven/admissible due to exclusion of blood samples; Count alleging impaired driving (s.253(a)) proven — accused found guilty.
Legal Topics
Driving Under the Influence, Blood and Breath Evidence Admissibility, Section 258 Presumption, Reasonable and Probable Grounds, Approved Container/chain of Custody
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Impaired Driving Evidence Driving Under the Influence Blood and Breath Evidence Admissibility Section 258 Presumption Reasonable and Probable Grounds Approved Container/chain of Custody

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Dennis Darrell Boudreau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Sentencing/decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of blood analysis (approved container/trademark issue)
  2. 2 Operation of s.258(1)(d) presumption
  3. 3 Whether officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand blood versus breath under s.254(3)

Ratio Decidendi

The blood analysis was excluded because the officer did not have reasonable and probable grounds at the time to believe the accused was incapable of providing a breath sample or that a breath sample was impracticable, so the s.258 presumption could not be relied upon; however, independent admissible evidence of impairment from civilian, police and medical witnesses proved the s.253(a) impaired driving offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Count alleging excess blood alcohol (s.253(b)) not proven/admissible due to exclusion of blood samples; Count alleging impaired driving (s.253(a)) proven — accused found guilty.

Orders

  • Blood analysis evidence excluded for lack of reasonable and probable grounds for blood demand
  • Count contrary to s.253(b) dismissed/not proven