R. v. Pearson

[1996] O.J. No. 1141

Facts

ON CA

This was an appeal from conviction of driving with a blood alcohol level over 80. The appellant argued that the judge erred in relying on s 258(1)(c) to conclude that the appeallant was over the prohibitited blood level when he was driving.

Reasons

ON CA

We see nothing in teh evidence which would undermine the presumpion of accuracy in s 158(1)(a). That section could therefore provide the basis for the finding that the tests accurately reflected the appellants blood alcohol level at the time of the testing

Facts

ON CJ

The accused is charged with an over 80 and 2 counts of impairement causing bodily harm. The accused was driving north on Keele street in a rainy and misty day. He struck another car from the reer and injured 2 individuals, one injured his leg and the other also recieved an injured leg. He was noticed to be stragering by the two witnesses, and also police noticed signs of impairment. The accused was charged.

Reasons

ON CJ

The Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused bodily harm through impairement to do several factors. The tow truck driver did not notice any signs of impairement and the police's came to the conclusion that he was impaired but the judge did not agree with their conclusion due to the fact that he passed all the physical tests in the police station. Counts one and two were dissmissed for those reasons. There was beleived to be more alcohol in the alcohol standard and it affected the breath ratings but since the ratings were to high and Mr Pearson addmitted to drinking at work he was convicted to the over 80 charge.

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