Proof that an accused’s blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood is an essential element in every ‘over 80’ prosecution. Two test results from a Intoxilyzer will be deemed “conclusive proof” of the accused’s blood/alcohol content at the time of driving unless it can be shown the instrument was “malfunctioning or operated improperly. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that the defence is not entitled to an order requiring the disclosure of general information related to the history and performance of the particular Intoxilyzer 8000C device used thereby blocking any attempt to discover if the device was working properly.
Case: R. v. Jackson, 2015 ONCA 832 Keywords: Disclosure; ‘Over-80’; Stinchcombe; O’Connor; Subpoena Duces Tecum; Intoxilyzer 8000C; St‑Onge Lamoureux Synopsis: The Basic Facts A police officer sees David Jackson’s car drift into an adjacent traffic lane three times before inexplicably decelerating. The erratic behaviour of the car leads the officer to signal for Mr. Jackson …
Source: Supreme Advocacy LLP