Robert Hyslop

The respondent pleaded guilty to having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

He was subsequently charged with wilfully failing to comply with a probation order requiring him to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

At trial, he testified he did not know he was breaking the law because he believed the car could not be started.

The trial judge acquitted him of the breach of probation charge, finding he lacked the requisite mens rea.

The Crown appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the offence of wilfully failing to comply with a probation order requires its own mens rea, and an honest belief that one is not committing the underlying offence negates the wilful intent required for a breach.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams.

At trial, the Crown introduced a certificate of analysis from a breathalyzer test.

The defence called an expert witness who testified that the technician's failure to record the room temperature during the calibration check could result in an inaccurate reading.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, and the acquittal was upheld on appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the certificate was admissible and that the expert's testimony regarding a mere possibility of inaccuracy did not constitute 'evidence to the contrary' sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt.