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.
