Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court dismissed the leave application because the officer's observation of odour alone provided reasonable grounds for an ASD demand and the identity of the driver was established without reliance on the appellant's statements; therefore no significant legal error under s.7 arose and the appeal lacked significance beyond the case.
Source excerpt
Appeal from a summary conviction for over‑80 driving was allowed because the trial judge failed to consider all evidence before the breath demand.
Because the Crown called viva voce testimony of the Intoxilyzer technician and filed the certificate, the trial judge was entitled to consider the test results and surrounding circumstances in assessing the credibility of the defence; the presumption of accuracy need not have been relied upon and there was no legal error. The appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
Where no approved container has been designated, s.258(1)(c)(iii) must be read to require that breath samples be received directly from the accused into an approved instrument; because the statutory proof is conclusive, the provision must be strictly construed, and uncontradicted circumstantial evidence from a qualified technician that the accused blew into the instrument mouthpiece and the instrument was working properly is sufficient to allow a trier of fact to infer direct receipt and sustain a conviction.
Source excerpt
The Court considered whether “straddle evidence” and post-offence elimination tests could rebut the Criminal Code presumption for driving over 80 mg BAC.
The court dismissed an impaired-driving appeal, holding the ASD demand was valid despite the crash rendering the car inoperable and the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.
Appeal from summary conviction in a drinking-and-driving case. The court held the trial judge misapprehended expert evidence on Count 2 and ordered a new trial.
The appeal is dismissed because, aside from one tenuous reason identified by the summary conviction appeal court, the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by the record and were not so tenuous or misinterpreted as to amount to reversible error; the ineffective assistance claim was unsupported by evidence and proposed measures would not have assisted the defence.
Source excerpt
The Crown adduced sufficient evidence that the delay was reasonable in all the circumstances (arrest, transport, waiting for technician, search, informing and machine preparation), so the breath samples were taken 'as soon as practicable' under s.258(1)(c)(ii); the trial judge's factual finding stands and the appeal is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The approved screening device result and subsequent breathalyzer evidence were obtained outside the scope of s.254(2) because the breath sample was not provided 'forthwith' (delay ~59 minutes from initial detention); the detention and seizure thus breached ss.8 and 9 and the s.10(b) rights were not fully observed; under s.24(2) the evidence is excluded and the accused is acquitted of s.253(a) and s.253(b) offences.
Source excerpt
Explore more
