R. v. D.R., (1990) 106 A.R. 88 (ProvCt)

• Judge: Russell, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 20, 1990
• Citations: (1990), 106 A.R. 88 (ProvCt)

R. v. D.R. (1990), 106 A.R. 88 (ProvCt)

MLB headnote and full text

Her Majesty the Queen v. D.R.

Indexed As: R. v. D.R.

Alberta Provincial Court

Youth Division

Russell, P.C.J.

February 20, 1990.

Summary:

A young offender was charged with impaired driving and with driving while having an excessive blood-alcohol level. He opposed the admissibility of the breathalyzer certificate on several grounds.

The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the admissibility of a breathalyzer certificate should be determined on a voir dire. The court held that the Crown had established a prima facie case for admissibility and the accused was entitled to present rebuttal evidence.

Criminal Law - Topic 1372

Motor vehicles - Breathalyzer - Demand - Reasonable grounds - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the absence of reasonable grounds for belief that the accused was impaired and was driving while impaired was irrelevant to the admissibility of the breathalyzer certificate - See paragraphs 6 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Evidence - Certificate evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, stated that proof that samples were taken was a prerequisite to admissibility of a certificate; although proof of the receipt of the samples into the container was not a prerequisite - See paragraph 14.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Evidence - Certificate evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, stated that the only two conditions for admission of a breathalyzer certificate were that samples of breath were taken and that they were taken pursuant to a demand - The accused could call evidence prior to admission of the certificate to rebut evidence that a sample was taken - Once the certificate was admitted, other evidence might be introduced to question its probative value, for example, a technician's evidence would only go to the probative weight and not to its admissibility - See paragraphs 14 to 18.

Criminal Law - Topic 1375

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Demand for breath sample - Proof of demand - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that proof of a demand was not a precondition to the admissibility of a breathalyzer certificate - See paragraphs 11 to 13.

Criminal Law - Topic 5334

Evidence and witnesses - Confessions and voluntary statements - Voir dire - Procedure - The Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, held that the admissibility of a breathalyzer certificate should be determined on a voir dire - See paragraphs 19 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rilling (1975), 5 N.R. 327; 21 C.C.C.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 6].

R. v. Hruby (1980), 19 A.R. 230, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Harvey (1979), 19 A.R. 382, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Davis (1983), 42 A.R. 185, refd to. [para. 17].

R. v. Morgan (1983), 51 A.R. 201, refd to. [para. 19].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 253(a) [para. 2]; sect. 253(b) [paras. 1, 2]; sect. 258(1)(c)(iii) [para. 14].

Counsel:

None disclosed.

This case was heard before Russell, P.C.J., of the Alberta Provincial Court, Youth Division, who delivered the following judgment on February 20, 1990.