R. v. Egger

82 C.C.C. (3d) 193



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.



"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.

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