T. Vandenen

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg% contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath samples obtained via an approved instrument.

Three main legal issues emerged at trial: (1) whether the presumption of identity under s. 258 of the Criminal Code applied following the repeal of that section by Bill C-46; (2) whether the Crown satisfied the requirements of s. 320.31 regarding the presumption of accuracy without producing a certificate of analyst; and (3) whether the accused's rights under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were violated when police failed to diligently pursue contact with her counsel of choice before offering duty counsel.

The court found that s. 258 remained applicable to legacy charges, that the presumption of accuracy was established through qualified technician testimony, and that while a Charter violation occurred, the breath evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) analysis.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was convicted of Over 80 driving following a serious motor vehicle collision on September 2, 2016 in Bracebridge.

The defendant's pickup truck collided with a sedan and struck the grounds of the Riverside Inn, causing significant property damage.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 140 and 130 mg per 100 ml of blood.

As a first-time offender with a poor driving record and history of alcohol-related incidents, the court imposed a custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence in impaired driving cases.