R. v. Tingley

R. v. Tingley

The Certificate of Analysis was admissible as evidence under s.258(1)(g) and, on the totality of the evidence, the defence did not present credible evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of accuracy in s.25 of the Interpretation Act or the presumption of identity in s.258(1)(c)/(d.1); the judge rejected the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2005 NSPC 17
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Timothy Nicholas Tingley
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
9 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving / Judgment
Outcome
Found guilty of s.253(b) Criminal Code (over .08); acquitted of s.253(a) Criminal Code (impaired driving)
Legal Topics
Presumption of Accuracy, Presumption of Identity, Breathalyzer Evidence, Interpretation Act S.25, Section 258(1)(g)
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Evidence Road Safety Forensic Toxicology Presumption of Accuracy Presumption of Identity Breathalyzer Evidence Interpretation Act S.25 +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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Timothy Nicholas Tingley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Certificate of Analysis and breath test results may be considered and whether the presumptions in s.25 of the Interpretation Act and s.258(1)(c),(g) of the Criminal Code are displaced by evidence to the contrary
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's viva voce evidence and expert opinion rebut the statutory presumptions
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of identity applies to link the breath result to the time of driving

Ratio Decidendi

The Certificate of Analysis was admissible as evidence under s.258(1)(g) and, on the totality of the evidence, the defence did not present credible evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption of accuracy in s.25 of the Interpretation Act or the presumption of identity in s.258(1)(c)/(d.1); the judge rejected the defendant's drinking scenario as not credible and accepted the breath readings (100 mg/100 mL) as establishing the accused's blood alcohol at the time of driving, resulting in conviction under s.253(b) and acquittal on s.253(a).

Court Disposition

Found guilty of s.253(b) Criminal Code (over .08); acquitted of s.253(a) Criminal Code (impaired driving)

Orders

  • Convicted under s.253(b) Criminal Code (blood alcohol 100 mg/100 mL)
  • Acquitted of s.253(a) Criminal Code