R. v. Egger

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

Facts

SCC

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.

Reasons

SCC

"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

SCC

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

contact us

Contact us for an initial consultation.

Stephen R. Biss

Barrister & Solicitor

303-470 Hensall Circle

Mississauga, ON

L5A 3V4

905-273-3322

biss@lawyers.ca

Youth Courts We Cover

We represent young persons at all GTA Youth Court Courthouses including Brampton, Milton, Orangeville, Guelph, and Toronto.

​© Copyright 2020 Stephen R. Biss, Barrister & Solicitor