R. v. Buchanan

R. v. Buchanan

(1) Notices on the certificates were sufficiently legible in substance and were personally served; certificates admissible. (2) The Vaccutainer XF947 marked TM was treated as the prescribed vessel; alternatively even if not strictly an "approved container" the Crown established chain of custody and lack of contamination so results admissible. (3) The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the analyst's foundational assumptions that the accused consumed no alcohol in the half hour before the accident and no alcohol during multiple unproven periods between the accident and sampling; that absence of evidence raises a reasonable doubt with respect to extrapolation to the time of...

Citation
2005 NSPC 61
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Ronald Ivan Buchanan
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal (impaired Driving; Criminal Code Ss.253,254) / Trial — Decision on Guilt (verdict)
Outcome
Count 1 (s.253(b) — blood alcohol over .08): Not guilty. Count 2 (s.253(a) — impaired operation): Guilty; conviction entered.
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Blood Sample Admissibility, Certificate Evidence (s.258), Approved Container Regulation, Expert Opinion Assumptions, Reasonable Doubt, Right to Counsel/notice
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Road Traffic / Impaired Driving Evidence Law Forensic Toxicology Impaired Driving Blood Sample Admissibility Certificate Evidence (s.258) Approved Container Regulation +3 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Ronald Ivan Buchanan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal (impaired Driving; Criminal Code Ss.253,254) / Trial — Decision on Guilt (verdict)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Admissibility of qualified technician and qualified medical practitioner certificates under s.258(7)
  2. 2 Whether blood was collected in an approved container and effect on presumption under s.258(1)(d)
  3. 3 Whether Crown proved evidentiary basis for analyst's assumptions about no alcohol consumption before or after the accident

Ratio Decidendi

(1) Notices on the certificates were sufficiently legible in substance and were personally served; certificates admissible. (2) The Vaccutainer XF947 marked TM was treated as the prescribed vessel; alternatively even if not strictly an "approved container" the Crown established chain of custody and lack of contamination so results admissible. (3) The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the analyst's foundational assumptions that the accused consumed no alcohol in the half hour before the accident and no alcohol during multiple unproven periods between the accident and sampling; that absence of evidence raises a reasonable doubt with respect to extrapolation to the time of...

Court Disposition

Count 1 (s.253(b) — blood alcohol over .08): Not guilty. Count 2 (s.253(a) — impaired operation): Guilty; conviction entered.

Orders

  • Count 1: Acquitted (not guilty).
  • Count 2: Convicted; conviction entered on s.253(a); sentencing to be scheduled.