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 Supreme Court of Canada held that the Crown must disclose the target value of the alcohol standard, but need not prove it to rely on the presumption of accuracy.
The Supreme Court held that a qualified technician’s evidence can prove an alcohol standard was certified by an analyst for the breath-test presumption of accuracy.
The Yukon Court of Appeal held that a qualified technician’s certificate could prove the alcohol standard was certified by an analyst, allowing the Crown’s appeal.
The presumption of identity in former s.258(1)(c) survives repeal for transitional cases where the breath samples were taken before December 18, 2018 and the trial occurs after that date; the trial judge therefore erred in excluding the presumption and granting a directed verdict acquittal. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted for a new trial, pursuant to the Interpretation Act and principles of statutory construction and parliamentary intent to preserve the evidentiary regime in legacy cases.
Source excerpt
The trial judge erred in law by holding the presumption of identity in former s.258(1)(c) unavailable in transitional cases; having regard to the Interpretation Act, the legislative purpose to simplify proof of BAC and the absurdity of requiring expert evidence in every transitional trial, the presumption remains available where samples were taken before December 18, 2018 but trial occurs after that date; accordingly the Crown proved the requisite BAC and the court entered conviction and remitted for sentencing.
Source excerpt
The court held the former presumption of identity continues to apply to transitional Over 80 cases, but the Crown failed to prove the requisite preconditions for both the presumption of identity (that each sample was received directly into the approved instrument) and the presumption of accuracy (including that the standard solution was certified/verified and specific calibration requirements), and therefore failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's BAC was Over 80 or that he operated while impaired; accused acquitted.
Source excerpt
The appeal is allowed and the conviction restored because the evidence that the radar device was tested before and after use and that the operator was qualified satisfied the Bigioni standard of a prima facie case, and the appeal judge erred in substituting a factual finding the justice of the peace was entitled to make.
Source excerpt
The prohibition on using breathalyzer results to assess credibility applies only when the Crown relies on the presumption of accuracy and the accused challenges that presumption; when the Crown calls the breath technician and relies on the presumption of identity only, the readings are part of the evidence and may be considered in assessing credibility and evidence to the contrary.
Source excerpt
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
Leave to appeal was refused because the summary conviction appeal judge properly applied the governing standard for judicial interventions (per R. v. R. (R.)) and the issues advanced did not present an arguable ground of appeal or significance to the administration of justice beyond the peculiar facts of the case.
Source excerpt
Explore more
