DUI DWI DRE: Impaired Driving Lawyer
Unofficial information about this Ontario legislation is provided by the following attorney or lawyer:
DUI, DWI & Criminal Legislation in Ontario
Interpretation Act , section: 25
Warning: This is NOT a government web site. The information provided herein has NOT been provided by a government. This information has been provided by a lawyer or attorney or student, for the purpose of providing basic information about the laws and regulations enacted by a government and the government offices that apply laws and regulations, and for the purpose of encouraging discussion and facilitating proper legal challenges related to the application of laws and regulations made by government. Citizens always have the right to challenge government. Citizens need independent information not provided by government about government offices, phone numbers, locations, and their services or lack thereof. Please note that the information provided may not be up to date. It is your responsibility to meet with a lawyer or attorney in person to get complete advice. Information provided by some government sites may also be sometimes out of date, sometimes incomplete, or sometimes focused on protection of government politicians, officers, policy initiatives, and interests. It is essential that you retain and instruct an independent lawyer or attorney to represent YOUR interests and inform you accordingly.
DUI Procedure/Evidence, Presumption of Accuracy
25. (1) Where an enactment provides that a document is evidence of a fact without anything in the context to indicate that the document is conclusive evidence, then, in any judicial proceedings, the document is admissible in evidence and the fact is deemed to be established in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
Comments : Note that effective July 2, 2008 the operation of this section is precluded under section 258(1)(c) accuracy cases as a result of the wording "conclusive proof" in the new section 258(1)(c). This means that there is no longer ANY "evidence to the contrary" defence in accuracy cases where section 258(1)(c) is applicable. It is respectfully submitted that this limitation renders the amendment excluding "evidence to the contrary" unconstitutional under Charter sections 7, 11(d), and 15. Innocent Canadians may be convicted because truth (a real difference between true BAC and apparent BrAC even if scientifically established with well-documented drinking scenario) is no longer a defence. It is not a defence to establish a true BAC below 80 and a scientific explanation for the difference between true BAC and apparent BrAC.
This is not the official web site for the Ontario legislature.
| Privacy |
WARNING: All information contained herein is provided for the purpose of providing basic information only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney.
Warning: This is NOT a government web site.