Stephen Biss

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and "over 80" after police found his extensively damaged vehicle stationary on an exit ramp with the motor running.

The defendant challenged whether the Crown could rely on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(c) that breath readings conclusively prove blood alcohol concentration, arguing the samples were not taken as soon as practicable and the first sample was not taken within two hours of the alleged offence.

The defendant also challenged the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000C and argued the evidence of impairment was insufficient.

The court found the Crown had proven the temporal preconditions beyond a reasonable doubt, the police acted reasonably in obtaining the samples, there was no Charter breach, and the evidence of impairment was sufficient.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with failing to provide an approved screening device (ASD) sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

After being stopped for a traffic investigation, the accused was asked to provide a breath sample into an ASD but failed to do so despite 26 attempts.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence of his refusal on the grounds that his Charter rights to counsel (section 10(b)) and protection against arbitrary detention (section 9) were violated.

The court found that the accused was not handcuffed prior to arrest and that evidence of his refusal to provide a sample, as opposed to evidence obtained from compelled participation, was admissible.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application seeking disclosure of records relating to the Intoxilyzer device used to test his breath samples, including maintenance logs, calibration data, and internal quality assurance records.

The Crown and police service opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the requested records were third-party records subject to the O'Connor regime and that the accused had failed to meet the "likely relevant" threshold required for production of such records.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit (driving over 80) and while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown relied on breath test results from an Intoxilyzer 8000C showing readings of 187 and 175 mg of alcohol per 100 mL of blood.

The defence brought applications seeking COBRA data (downloadable data from the breath testing instrument) in electronic format and seeking a view of the breath room at Traffic Services.

The court allowed in part the COBRA data application, ordering disclosure of all COBRA data generated by the specific instrument from the quality assurance checks through the subject tests in native raw text file format.

The court dismissed the view application, finding insufficient evidentiary foundation and no demonstrated advantage to taking a view over two years after the fact.

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.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following a high-speed collision on the QEW.

The Crown's case was significantly hampered by the investigating officer's inability to testify due to a serious ATV accident, the unavailability of a key witness, and a conceded Charter breach regarding blood test evidence obtained under a demand.

The Crown proceeded by way of summary conviction and relied on hospital blood test results, expert toxicology evidence, and witness observations of impairment.

The court admitted hospital blood test records as business records and found the defendant guilty on all three counts based on the blood alcohol analysis and evidence of dangerous driving.