R. v. Boudreau

R. v. Boudreau

Where a certificate of a qualified technician is complete on its face but contains a typographical error, the error can be corrected by viva voce evidence (including testimony of an officer present at the testing) such that the certificate conforms to s.258(1)(g); applying that principle to the facts, the court accepted evidence that both breath samples were taken on April 9, 2017 and admitted the certificate, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused registered 120 mg/100 ml and convicting her under s.253(1)(b).

Citation
2018 NSPC 5
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Peggy L. Boudreau
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
8 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (verdict)
Outcome
Guilty on count of failing the breathalyzer (s.253(1)(b)); judicial stay entered on the impaired driving count (s.253(1)(a)).
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Breathalyzer/section 253, Certificate of Qualified Technician, Section 258(1)(g) Admissibility, Viva Voce Correction of Certificate, Typographical Error in Certificate
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Evidence Traffic Offences Impaired Driving Breathalyzer/section 253 Certificate of Qualified Technician Section 258(1)(g) Admissibility Viva Voce Correction of Certificate +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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Peggy L. Boudreau

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Trial Judgment (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol or drug
  2. 2 Whether a typographical error in the qualified technician's certificate can be corrected by viva voce evidence to meet s.258(1)(g) requirements

Ratio Decidendi

Where a certificate of a qualified technician is complete on its face but contains a typographical error, the error can be corrected by viva voce evidence (including testimony of an officer present at the testing) such that the certificate conforms to s.258(1)(g); applying that principle to the facts, the court accepted evidence that both breath samples were taken on April 9, 2017 and admitted the certificate, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused registered 120 mg/100 ml and convicting her under s.253(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Guilty on count of failing the breathalyzer (s.253(1)(b)); judicial stay entered on the impaired driving count (s.253(1)(a)).

Orders

  • Convicted of failing to comply with breath demand contrary to s.253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
  • Judicial stay entered on the impaired driving charge contrary to s.253(1)(a).