Joshua M. Arnold

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 two counts of aggravated assault against two different victims.

The Crown inadvertently failed to disclose a witness statement to the defence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Dixon, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the undisclosed statement did not affect the reliability of the conviction for the first assault.

However, for the second assault, the statement contained exculpatory evidence that could have raised a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new trial was ordered for the second assault.