A. Nigro

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg per 100 mL of blood).

Officers conducted a RIDE spot check and the defendant failed a roadside screening test.

Two breath samples were provided at the station, registering 160 mg and 150 mg respectively.

The defence raised two Charter-based arguments and two substantive challenges: (1) that the presumption of identity in s. 258 of the Criminal Code does not survive its repeal (the Shaikh issue), and (2) that the Crown failed to establish the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer tests (the Flores-Vigil issue).

The court rejected both defence arguments, finding that the presumption of identity applies to pre-amendment offences and that the Crown established the preconditions for the presumption of accuracy through viva voce evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration ("over 80").

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath sampling results under the Charter, claiming violations of sections 8 and 9.

The court found technical breaches but admitted the evidence.

The central issue was whether the prosecution could rely on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code after its repeal by An Act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances), which came into force on December 18, 2018.

The court followed R. v. Shaikh and held that the presumption of identity no longer applied to transitional cases.

Without the presumption, the Crown could not prove the defendant's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant had consumed alcohol approximately five minutes before driving.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL.

At trial, the defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath testing results.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to rely on the approved screening device (ASD) result.

The officer administered the ASD approximately 14 minutes after the defendant's last known alcohol consumption, rather than the required 15 minutes, due to a mathematical error.

The court found that the officer lacked objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and that both section 8 and section 9 Charter violations occurred.

However, applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted the breath sampling evidence, finding the violations minor and the evidence reliable.