Evidential breath testing for alcohol, Parliament, the science and the courts (Part 2)

Abstract

A previous article in this journal traced the evolution of the law from the first amendment to the Criminal Code related to breath testing for alcohol in 1951 to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in November 2012 on the constitutionality of the 2008 Criminal Code amendments that eliminated the “two beer” defence. This article discusses the legal, scientific and parliamentary response to that decision leading up to the 2018 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on whether maintenance records could constitute evidence that the approved instrument had malfunctioned.

RÉSUMÉ

Un article précédant dans ce journal a tracé l’évolution de la loi, passant de la première modification au Code criminel relative au test d’haleine pour l’alcool en 1951 à la décision de la Cour suprême du Canada en novembre 2012 sur la constitutionnalité des modifications au Code criminel de 2008 qui ont éliminé la défense du « dernier verre ». Cet article traite de la réponse juridique, scientifique et parlementaire à cette décision qui a mené à la décision de 2018 de la Cour suprême du Canada sur la question de savoir si les registres d’entretien pouvaient constituer la preuve que l’éthylomètre avait mal fonctionné.

Keywords:

• Breath testing
• approved instruments
• Parliament
• Supreme Court of Canada

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 Courts, police and the public still call the instruments used by the police “breathalyzers” since the Breathalyzer was the first instrument to be approved by the Attorney General of Canada for use by police to prove BAC.

2 A search of Quicklaw for “maintenance records” came up with 564 cases and for “registres d’entretien” 156 cases.

3 The author could find no reported cases after the 2008 amendments were in force where a court found that, despite the AI performing properly, the BAC was wrong. Accused were acquitted on such issues as failure to provide right to counsel promptly, lack of grounds to make the demand, or the accused had a drink just before being stopped so BAC at the time of driving was below 80 even though it was above 80 at the time of testing.

4 The factums are on the SCC web site: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=37395

5 Only Abella, J. participated in both St-Onge and Gubbins. She concurred in both majority opinions.

6 Lengthy extract from Position Paper omitted.

7 The mandatory minimum penalty for causing a death was reduced to 5 years from 6 years and, most importantly, Random Breath Testing was included.