2 total
The court admitted breathalyzer certificates, ruling that a Supreme Court refusal of leave to appeal does not create binding precedent.
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.
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample due to frail evidence and inadequate opportunity to comply.
The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, arising from a single motor vehicle collision on October 26, 2016 in Milton, Ontario.
The Crown proceeded summarily.
The trial addressed two main issues: whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether the Crown proved the requisite mens rea for the failure to provide a breath sample charge.
The court found that the Crown failed to prove both charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.
