L'approche à adopter lorsque la question de l'admissibilité des résultats d'un alcootest est en cause

R. v. Gundy, 2008 ONCA 284 (CanLII)

[50] To summarize, on a charge of “over 80” or impaired driving, where an issue arises as to the admissibility of the results of the Intoxilizer/Breathalyzer analysis, the trial court should proceed as follows:

Generally

1. If the accused does not challenge the admissibility of the results of the Intoxilizer/Breathalyzer analysis on the basis that the accused’s rights under the Charter were violated, the Crown is not required to establish that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make the s. 254(3) demand.

2. Any objection to the admissibility of the results of the analysis should ordinarily be made, at the latest, when the Crown tenders the evidence either through a certificate under s. 258(1)(g) or by way of oral testimony.

3. Where the accused intends to object to the admissibility of the results of the analysis on the basis of a violation of the Charter, the accused should comply with Rule 30 of the Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice in Criminal Proceedings, although a trial judge has a discretion to dispense with notice in a proper case.

Charter challenge because of lack of reasonable and probable grounds

4. Where the accused objects to the admissibility of the results of the analysis pursuant to ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to make the demand, the burden is on the Crown to establish the requisite grounds.

5. Reasonable and probable grounds involve an objective and subjective test. Where the grounds depend upon a “fail” from an approved screening device, the Crown must prove that the officer reasonably believed that he or she was using an approved device.

6. In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the officer’s testimony that he or she made a demand with an approved screening device is sufficient evidence that the officer had the requisite reasonable belief. The officer is not required to give the particular model number or otherwise identify the device. Obvious errors such as incomplete reference to the model number do not undermine the officer’s testimony that the device was an approved screening device.

7. Where the officer did not have the requisite reasonable and probable grounds, the warrantless seizure of breath samples for analysis in an Intoxilizer or breathalyzer is an unreasonable seizure within the meaning of s. 8 and the results may be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.