Ontario Criminal


Court found officer’s testimony just barely sufficient evidence to make out service

Accused charged with impaired driving and driving “over 80”. Officers pulled over accused’s vehicle when he was seen to be unable to keep his vehicle in its lane and then failed to stop for red light. Accused was arrested for impaired operation and brought to detachment to give breath samples. Accused gave breath readings of 190. Officer testified he served accused with “exact copies” of Certificate of Qualified Technician and he showed him that they were exactly same and reviewed them with him, but told court that accused refused to sign his name as having received certificate. Certificate of Analysis admissible, accused guilty of driving “over 80”, but count stayed in light of impaired operation conviction. Court found officer’s testimony was just barely sufficient evidence to make out service.

R. v. Driffield

(Nov. 18, 2011, Ont. C.J., Feldman J.) 98 W.C.B. (2d) 721 (6 pp.).

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?