Eric J. Tolppanen

The appellants were charged with driving 'over 80' after failing breathalyzer tests.

At trial, they adduced expert 'straddle evidence' indicating that, based on their drinking patterns and average alcohol elimination rates, their blood alcohol concentrations could have been either above or below the legal limit at the time of driving.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that straddle evidence does not rebut the statutory presumption in s. 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code, as it merely confirms the accused consumed enough alcohol to reach a level exceeding 80 mg and does not tend to show the concentration was below the legal limit.

The appeals were dismissed and the convictions/orders for new trials were upheld.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter after stabbing a victim during an altercation.

At trial, the judge refused to charge the jury with the defence of self-defence under s. 34(1) of the Criminal Code, finding it lacked an air of reality.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, agreeing with the dissenting appellate judge that the defence of self-defence should have been put to the jury, and ordered a new trial.