Ben Joseph

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused drove with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds and argued the instruments were unreliable and inaccurate.

The trial spanned 18 days over approximately two years.

The court found the police lawfully stopped the vehicle based on speeding, had reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples, and properly administered the breath tests.

Expert evidence from the Crown's toxicologist established the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000 C results.

The defence expert's theory of instrument drift was rejected as unscientific and based on incomplete data.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, arising from a collision on Highway 144 in October 2013.

The Crown proved the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol through evidence of the accident circumstances, observations of impairment, and breath test results of 201 and 203 milligrams.

The defence challenged the reliability of the Intoxilizer 8000C device through expert evidence regarding historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court rejected the defence expert's evidence as lacking proper foundation and logical relevance, finding it did not meet the threshold for admissibility.

The court convicted the accused on both charges.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from a toxicologist regarding the maintenance and operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device in an over 80 operation case.

The expert sought to raise a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breath test results by analyzing historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court excluded the expert evidence on multiple grounds: the opinions were not logically relevant as they could not raise a reasonable doubt about the specific breath test results; the opinions were based on speculation and erroneous factual information; and the opinions constituted novel science lacking sufficient reliability and peer review.

The court emphasized that maintenance deficiencies must be directly linked to unreliable results, and that historical records cannot address the working status of the instrument at the time of the subject test.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and operate over 80 following an incident on November 3, 2013.

The Crown established that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that his blood alcohol concentration substantially exceeded the legal limit of 80 mg/100mL.

The defence conceded these facts but argued the defendant lacked the necessary mens rea, claiming he was disabled through no fault of his own from appreciating that he was impaired or that his BAC exceeded the legal limit due to an interaction between Tylenol 3 medication and alcohol.

The court rejected this defence, finding that the defendant's impairment resulted from voluntary consumption of alcohol and that he knew or ought to have known of the risks.

The court convicted on both counts.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

He argued that the roadside screening demand was not made forthwith and that police breached his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, that the evidentiary breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable under the Criminal Code, and that deficiencies in breath‑testing procedures undermined the reliability of the results.

The court held the trial judge applied the correct legal tests and made reasonable factual findings regarding the short delay in obtaining an Approved Screening Device, the timing of the breath tests, and the functioning of the approved instrument.

The court found no Charter breach and no evidentiary basis to rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy of the breath readings.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.