In R v Greenough, 2013 SKQB 208 the summary conviction appeal judge held there was evidence of the improper operation of the Intoxilyzer because the evidence was the technician did not wait 20 minutes, as the EC/IR ii manual indicated, after obtaining an improper sample, before taking a second. The result was that the Crown only had one test, and therefore could not rely upon the presumptions of accuracy and identity set out in s. 258 of the Criminal Code.


No responses yet

Leave a Reply

Privacy Policy

Please click here to view our Privacy Policy