The accused, charged with impaired operation, objected to the admissibility of Intoxilyzer printouts and breath technician/analyst certificates.
The defence argued that the analyst's certification of the solution could not be proven by the breath technician's viva voce evidence or certificate, citing R. v. Goldson.
The court rejected this argument, affirming that a Supreme Court of Canada refusal of leave to appeal does not add precedential value to a lower court decision.
Following Ontario precedent, the court found the breath technician's evidence and certificate admissible to prove the solution was certified by an analyst, and that the analyst's certificate, though referring to an old section, was sufficient to establish suitability for the Intoxilyzer.
The objection was dismissed, and the evidence was admitted.
