R. v. Toope

R. v. Toope

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the device referred to as 'SL-2' was an approved screening device under the Approved Screening Devices Order; without that proof the officer lacked the requisite reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent breathalyzer demand, rendering the demand...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 NSPC 30
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Keith Stewart Toope
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
13 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Not guilty
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer Admissibility, Approved Screening Devices, Section 254(2) Criminal Code
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Impaired Driving Breathalyzer Admissibility Approved Screening Devices Section 254(2) Criminal Code

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Keith Stewart Toope

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the screening device used (referred to as 'SL-2') was proven to be an 'approved screening device' within the meaning of s.254(2) Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether the absence of proof that the device was approved vitiates reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent breathalyzer demand
  3. 3 Whether the Certificate of Qualified Technician resulting from the breathalyzer test is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the device referred to as 'SL-2' was an approved screening device under the Approved Screening Devices Order; without that proof the officer lacked the requisite reasonable and probable grounds for the subsequent breathalyzer demand, rendering the demand unlawful and the resulting certificate inadmissible, entitling the defendant to an acquittal.

Court Disposition

Not guilty

Orders

  • Certificate of Qualified Technician excluded from evidence
  • Defendant found not guilty and acquitted of the charge under s.253(b) Criminal Code