R. v. Cassidy (E.J.J.), 2003 NSPC 4

• Judge: Crawford, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Nova Scotia (Canada)
• Case Date: January 21, 2003
• Jurisdiction: Nova Scotia
• Citations: 2003 NSPC 4;(2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 383 (PC)

R. v. Cassidy (E.J.J.) (2003), 212 N.S.R.(2d) 383 (PC);

 665 A.P.R. 383

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2003] N.S.R.(2d) TBEd. MR.046

Her Majesty The Queen v. Edward James Joseph Cassidy

(1192419; 2003 NSPC 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Cassidy (E.J.J.)

Nova Scotia Provincial Court

Crawford, P.C.J.

February 25, 2003.

Summary:

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle while having an excessive blood-alcohol content, contrary to s. 253(b) of the Criminal Code. The accused submitted that (1) the Crown failed to adequately identify the standard alcohol solution in the technician's certificate and (2) the certificate was inadmissible where there was an unexplained delay in administering the first breathalyzer test.

The Nova Scotia Provincial Court found the accused guilty. The standard alcohol solution was adequately identified and there was no unexplained delay in administering the test.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - An accused submitted that a breathalyzer certificate was inadmissible where the certificate of qualified technician identified the alcohol standard by manufacturer and lot number, but not by type of solution - The alcohol standard was identified as "standard alcohol solution Bodycote lot 30151" - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court held that the standard alcohol solution was adequately identified for the purposes of s. 258(1)(g)(i) of the Criminal Code - See paragraphs 11 to 12.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer or blood sample - Evidence and certificate evidence - The Nova Scotia Provincial Court rejected an accused's submission that an unexplained 28 minute delay between being handed over to the breathalyzer technician and the taking of the first sample rendered the breathalyzer certificate inadmissible for noncompliance with s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code (sample to be taken as soon as practicable) - The court noted that there was actually only a 13 minute delay, as it was customary to observe an accused for 15 minutes before administering the first test - A 13 minute delay, in relation to the entire time frame involved, was neither unreasonable nor significant - See paragraphs 13 to 24.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Campbell (A.), [2002] O.T.C. 26 (Sup. Ct.), dist. [para. 11].

R. v. Lightfoot, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 566; 36 N.R. 349, refd to. [para. 12].

R. v. Cook (J.S.) (1994), 130 N.S.R.(2d) 99; 367 A.P.R. 99 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 16].

R. v. Greek (G.E.) (1994), 131 N.S.R.(2d) 109; 371 A.P.R. 109 (Prov. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Russell (1990), 98 N.S.R.(2d) 33; 263 A.P.R. 33 (Co. Ct.), refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Mudry (1979), 19 A.R. 379 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Carter (1981), 9 Sask.R. 1; 59 C.C.C.(2d) 450 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 19].

R. v. Cresswell (R.J.), [2001] O.T.C. 774 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 19].

Counsel:

Anthony Brown, for the Crown;

Robert Cragg, for the defendant.

This case was heard on January 21, 2003, at Bridgewater, N.S., before Crawford, P.C.J., of the Nova Scotia Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on February 25, 2003.