R. v. Dygdala, (1976) 1 A.R. 359 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Prowse and Haddad, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: October 06, 1976
• Citations: (1976), 1 A.R. 359 (CA)

R. v. Dygdala (1976), 1 A.R. 359 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Dygdala

Indexed As: R. v. Dygdala

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Prowse and Haddad, JJ.A.

October 6, 1976.

Summary:

This headnote contains no summary.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicle - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence - What constitutes evidence to the contrary within the meaning of s. 237(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34 - Before taking a sample of the accused's breath in the breathalyzer machine the technician did not take a reading of the room temperature, but the results of a control test on the machine were within proper limits - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that failure of the technician to observe the room temperature did not constitute evidence to the contrary, to rebut the certificate evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test - The Appeal Division affirmed the admission of the certificate evidence of the results of the breathalyzer test into evidence and affirmed the conviction of the accused by the trial judge.

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 237(1)(c) [para. 1].

Counsel:

L.W. Zalapski, for the appellant;

Y. Roslak, Q.C., for the Crown.

This case was heard at Edmonton, Alberta, before CLEMENT, PROWSE and HADDAD, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On October 6, 1976, CLEMENT, J.A., delivered the following judgment of the Appellate Division: