Gerald Kupferschmidt

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert toxicological opinion evidence regarding blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels and signs of intoxication during a trial.

The expert was deemed qualified to testify on BAC levels and their physiological effects based on assumptions.

However, the court excluded the expert's opinion on whether an individual exhibited signs of intoxication or others' ability to detect impairment, holding that these are matters of common knowledge for a jury and do not require expert testimony.

The court also cautioned against experts developing hypotheses and sifting through evidence to support them.

Mohammed Karimullah appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The appeal raised several grounds, including alleged factual errors by the trial judge, the rejection of expert evidence regarding alcohol impairment, and the failure to adequately address good character evidence.

The court found that the alleged factual errors were either insignificant or not palpable and overriding.

The trial judge was entitled to reject expert opinion, even if uncontradicted, and to use common sense in evaluating the evidence, particularly regarding the appellant's changed driving behavior.

The court also determined that the trial judge's brief reference to good character evidence was sufficient, as a judge is presumed to know the law, and counsel did not emphasize it in closing.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire on Charter issues.

The Crown's evidence established grounds for the traffic stop, roadside demand, and breath demand.

The defendant's expert evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000C results, particularly concerning an ambient fail that occurred during testing and potential interfering substances in the breath room.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of accuracy and entered an acquittal.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath test results obtained using an Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The defence challenged the reliability of the breath tests by cross-examining the qualified technician extensively regarding deviations from manufacturer protocols, including failure to visually monitor the instrument during diagnostic checks, uncertainty regarding simulator identification, and temperature recording discrepancies.

The defence sought to rebut the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(c) by establishing the instrument was operated improperly.

The court found that without expert toxicological evidence to establish the significance of the alleged procedural deviations, a reasonable doubt could not be raised regarding proper operation of the instrument.

The accused was convicted and sentenced to a $1,100 fine and one-year driving prohibition.