Case Briefs
Database For Canadian Criminal Law

 R. v. Egger

List of Similar Cases | Add Data to This Case | Edit

  Home |Add a new case | List of Issues 
Search for a Case by Name, Cite, Issue, Facts and Reasons

Find A Case That Starts With

Canadian lawyers and Judges are invited to add Additional Issues, Facts, Reasons, Anecdotes, History, Comments, Distinguished, Overruled, Approved, Considered, Corrections, or anything else helpful to readers by clicking the Add Data to This Case hyperlink above. 

ID: 6

Title: R. v. Egger

Cite: 82 C.C.C. (3d) 193

Court: SCC

Date: 10/06/1993

Justices: L'Heureux-Dube, Sopinka, Cory, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ.

Result: Appeal allowed; acquittals restored

WhoWon: D

Issue: Disclosure


Charges: Impaired Driving and Over 80


 

Another Issue

availability of the statutory presumption in s. 258(1)(d)...what, if anything, must be disclosed to the accused, and when must it be disclosed...whether a request by the accused for the second blood sample required Edit


Facts

Impaired Driving and "over 80", blood samples (2) were used, presumption that blood-alcohol level at time of offence same as at time of taking blood sample. Applicant did not have notice of the second sample, second sample came day before the trail. Applicant could have used the second sample for analysis for his or his lawyer's use, but failed to understand this. Edit


Reasons

"In as much as disclosure of all relevant information is the general rule, the Crown must bring itself within an exception to that rule". Crown failed to give second blood-sample before the day of the trail and in that the trail judge excluded certain evidence because Crown failing to prove that accused notified of availability of second blood sample for analysis. Edit


 SCC Web Site


 Biss Private Use Only


 
Click this link to Add Your Comments about: R. v. Egger
Click here to Add a Hyperlink re  R. v. Egger

Biss Private Use Only