R. v. Bond

R. v. Bond

Officer testimony that the instrument was an 'approved' Alcotest 7410 established beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was an approved screening device; however the thirteen minute delay before testing meant the demand was not made 'forthwith' under s.254(2) and therefore the s.254(5) charge could not stand; there was insufficient evidence of impairment for s.253(a); possession of cannabis under s.4(1) CDSA was established and resulted in conviction.

Citation
2006 NSPC 17
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Frederick Francis Bond
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
20 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Provincial Court / Trial Judgment
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Approved Screening Device (breathalyzer), Right to Counsel, Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Failure to Comply With Demand
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Controlled Drugs and Substances Act Charter (constitutional Law) Evidence Impaired Driving Approved Screening Device (breathalyzer) Right to Counsel Unreasonable Search and Seizure +1 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Frederick Francis Bond

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Provincial Court / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the device used was an approved screening device required as an element of s.254(5) offence
  2. 2 Whether the demand to provide a breath sample was made 'forthwith' under s.254(2) given a 13 minute delay
  3. 3 Whether Crown proved failure to provide a breath sample beyond a reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

Officer testimony that the instrument was an 'approved' Alcotest 7410 established beyond a reasonable doubt that the device was an approved screening device; however the thirteen minute delay before testing meant the demand was not made 'forthwith' under s.254(2) and therefore the s.254(5) charge could not stand; there was insufficient evidence of impairment for s.253(a); possession of cannabis under s.4(1) CDSA was established and resulted in conviction.