R. v. Reeves, (1978) 9 A.R. 149 (CA)

• Judge: Clement, Moir and Morrow, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Alberta)
• Case Date: April 06, 1978
• Citations: (1978), 9 A.R. 149 (CA)

R. v. Reeves (1978), 9 A.R. 149 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Reeves

Indexed As: R. v. Reeves

Alberta Supreme Court

Appellate Division

Clement, Moir and Morrow, JJ.A.

April 6, 1978.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge against the accused of driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content contrary to s. 236 of the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34. The accused was given a breathalyzer test, while he was bleeding from a cut in the mouth. The breathalyzer reading was .22. At the trial of the accused expert medical testimony established that blood in the accused's mouth during the test would result in a higher reading, but would not be sufficient to cause a blood-alcohol reading of less than .08 to read as high as .22. The accused was convicted. The accused appealed on the ground inter alia that the evidence about the effect of blood on the breathalyzer reading constituted "evidence to the contrary" within the meaning of s. 237(1)(c) and rendered the certificate of analysis inadmissible.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of the accused. The Court of Appeal held that the evidence about the effect of blood on the breathalyzer reading was not "evidence to the contrary" within the meaning of s. 237(1)(c), because it did not tend to establish that the blood-alcohol level in the accused was below .08.

Criminal Law - Topic 1374

Motor vehicles - Impaired driving - Breathalyzer - Certificate evidence of results of analysis of breath sample - What constitutes "evidence to the contrary" - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 237(1) (c) - The accused was given a breathalyzer test, while he was bleeding from a cut in the mouth - The breathalyzer reading was .22 - Expert medical testimony established that blood in the accused's mouth during the test would result in a higher reading, but would not be sufficient to cause a blood-alcohol reading of less than .08 to read as high as .22 - The Alberta Court of Appeal held that the evidence about the effect of blood on the breathalyzer reading was not "evidence to the contrary" within the meaning of s. 237(1)(c), because it did not tend to establish that the blood-alcohol level in the accused was below .08.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Davis, [1974] 1 W.W.R. 89, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. Campbell (1971), 14 C.R.N.S. 164, folld. [para. 10].

R. v. Pickles (1973), 20 C.R.N.S. 301, appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Noble (1978), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 193, appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Gaetz (1972), 8 C.C.C.(2d) 3, appld. [para. 11].

R. v. Duke, [1971] 4 C.C.C. 504, appld. [para. 11].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 237(1)(c), sect. 237(1)(f) [para. 9].

Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. I-23, sect. 24(1) [para. 9].

Counsel:

S. Doz, for the appellant;

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

This case was heard before CLEMENT, MOIR and MORROW, JJ.A., of the Alberta Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

On April 6, 1978, CLEMENT, J.A., delivered the following judgment for the Appellate Division: