R. v. Boyd

R. v. Boyd

The judge found the officer honestly and reasonably believed residual mouth alcohol could affect the ASD result and that a brief nine‑minute delay from the roadside demand to administration of the ASD was no more than reasonably necessary; therefore the ASD was lawfully obtained, provided grounds for a s.254(3)...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2013 NSPC 5
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Paul Deblois Boyd
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
7 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Oral Decision (trial)
Outcome
Guilty of failing or refusing to comply with a demand under s.254(5) Criminal Code; conditional stay entered on s.253(1)(a) impaired driving charge.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Roadside Screening Device (asd), Breathalyzer Demand, Forthwith Requirement, Residual Mouth Alcohol, Reasonable Grounds
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Charter Law Impaired Driving Roadside Screening Device (asd) Breathalyzer Demand Forthwith Requirement Residual Mouth Alcohol +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Paul Deblois Boyd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Oral Decision (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ASD was administered "forthwith" under s.254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether officer had reasonable grounds to make a breathalyzer demand under s.254(3)
  3. 3 Whether the brief delay to avoid residual mouth alcohol was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The judge found the officer honestly and reasonably believed residual mouth alcohol could affect the ASD result and that a brief nine‑minute delay from the roadside demand to administration of the ASD was no more than reasonably necessary; therefore the ASD was lawfully obtained, provided grounds for a s.254(3) demand, the accused unequivocally refused to provide samples and was guilty of s.254(5); the s.253(1)(a) impaired driving charge was conditionally stayed.

Court Disposition

Guilty of failing or refusing to comply with a demand under s.254(5) Criminal Code; conditional stay entered on s.253(1)(a) impaired driving charge.

Orders

  • Convicted of failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples contrary to s.254(5) Criminal Code
  • Conditional stay entered on the charge under s.253(1)(a) Criminal Code (impaired care or control)