R. v. Burton

R. v. Burton

The court held the blood demand was supported by reasonable and probable grounds (single-vehicle accident, officer's smell of liquor and accused's admission about drinking), the s.10(b) caution was adequately communicated and the accused understood and waived counsel, the analyst certificate was therefore admissible...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2002 NSPC 32
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Defendant: Troy Daniel Burton
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Impaired Driving and Operation Over Legal Blood Alcohol Limit / Trial Decision (provincial Court)
Outcome
Guilty on s.253(b) (operation with blood alcohol over legal limit); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) impaired driving charge
Legal Topics
Impaired Driving, Blood Sample Demand Under S.254(3), Right to Counsel S.10(b), Presumption of Blood Alcohol S.258, Drug Impaired Driving
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Charter Law Forensic Toxicology Evidence Law Impaired Driving Blood Sample Demand Under S.254(3) Right to Counsel S.10(b) Presumption of Blood Alcohol S.258 +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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Troy Daniel Burton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Impaired Driving and Operation Over Legal Blood Alcohol Limit / Trial Decision (provincial Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the peace officer had reasonable and probable grounds to demand blood
  2. 2 Whether s.10(b) rights were adequately communicated and whether any waiver was valid
  3. 3 Admissibility of analyst certificate and application of presumption under s.258

Ratio Decidendi

The court held the blood demand was supported by reasonable and probable grounds (single-vehicle accident, officer's smell of liquor and accused's admission about drinking), the s.10(b) caution was adequately communicated and the accused understood and waived counsel, the analyst certificate was therefore admissible establishing BAC 92 mg/100mL (over legal limit) at time of driving pursuant to s.258, and the accused was guilty under s.253(b); a stay was entered on the s.253(a) impaired-driving count.

Court Disposition

Guilty on s.253(b) (operation with blood alcohol over legal limit); stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) impaired driving charge

Orders

  • Conviction entered for offence contrary to s.253(b) of the Criminal Code (blood alcohol over prescribed limit)
  • Stay of proceedings entered on s.253(a) impaired driving charge