Case Briefs
Database For Canadian Criminal Law

 R. v. Taylor

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


ID: 675

Title: R. v. Taylor

Cite: 7 C.C.C. (3d) 293

Court: ON CA

Date: 12/09/1983

Justices: MacKinnon, A.C.J.O., Martin and Goodman JJ.A

Result: appeal allowed acquittal entered

WhoWon: P

Issue: Fifteen Minutes Apart

Charges: Impaired Driving



On the accuseds trial for impaired driving a certificate of a breathalyzer technician was admitted into evidence. This certificate indicated that samples of the accuseds breath were taken at "1:12 am" and at "1:27 am". The breath tech was not called and there was no other evidence as to the times when the breath samples were taken. In convicting the accuseds of impaired driving the trial judge relied on the readings in the breath tech's certificate as corroboration of the accuseds condition at the time he was stopped by the police officer. The accuseds appeal to the county court was dismissed. On further appeal by the accused to the Court of Appeal, held, MacKinnon A.C.J.O. dissenting, the appeal should be allowed and an acquittal entered Edit


An interval of only 15 minutes is sufficient for compliance the words at least 15 minutes meaning 15 minutes or more. Further, where a certificate of analysis states the precise minute at which the taking of the first sample was completed and the precise minute at which the taking of the second sample was commenced, the first and last minute are not to be rejected in calculating the interval. Each of those times stated will be taken to mean the precise point in time of no duration at which each of the stated minutes commenced. In this case while it was contended that the certificate was open to the interpretation that the times stated therein referred to the completion of the taking of the first sample and the commencement of the taking of the second sample it was at least equally open to a finding on the part of the trial judge that the taking of each sample commenced at a time stated or that the taking of each sample was completed at the time stated. In those circumstances the Crown had failed to meat the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the requisite 15 minute interval had elapsed. Edit


Click this link to Add Your Comments about: R. v. Taylor

Click here to Add a Hyperlink re  R. v. Taylor