FP News Top Story

The Canadian Press - ONLINE EDITION

Supreme Court refers four drunk driving cases back to provincial appeal courts

By: The Canadian Press

Posted: 11/22/2012 9:27 AM | Comments: 0 | Last Modified: 11/22/2012 12:56 PM

OTTAWA - The Supreme Court of Canada has ordered the appeal courts in Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec to reconsider four old drunk driving cases in light of a new precedent-setting ruling it recently issued.

The appeal courts all ruled that the four accused should face new trials after being acquitted under the so-called Carter defence, which allowed an accused to present evidence of alcohol consumption that could challenge a breathalyzer reading.

The four were charged before the federal government killed that defence in July 2008 with amendments to the Criminal Code.

Their lawyers argued that the amendments could not be applied retroactively and that the original acquittals should be upheld.

In a ruling earlier this month, the Supreme Court restored a drunk-driving acquittal against a man who used the Carter defence in a case that began before the law was changed, ruling that retroactive application of the new rules breached his rights.

In an unusual move Thursday, the Supreme Court referred the four new cases back to the appeal courts and ordered them to resolve the matters in accordance with this ruling.

A spokeswoman for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the department is continuing its review of the Supreme Court's fine-tuning of the impaired driving law.

"Our government takes the issue of impaired driving very seriously," said spokeswoman Julie DiMambro.

Nicholson has said the amendments introduced three years ago were to ensure "only scientifically valid defences" could be used as evidence to challenge a roadside breathalyzer test.

Under the amendments, defendants challenging a reading higher than the legal blood-alcohol content limit of 0.08 have to show the breathalyzer malfunctioned or was misused.

Fact Check

Have you found an error, or know of something we’ve missed in one of our stories? Please use the form below and let us know.

* Required

In which story did you find the error? *
Please post the headline of the story or the title of the video with the error.
What was the error? *
Please post exactly what was wrong with the story.
What should we have written?
Please indicate your source for the correct information.
Who else should we interview to improve this story?
Please include any contact information you may have.
Can we contact you in the future for advice on stories about this topic?
Yes

No
First Name: *
Last Name: *
E–mail Address: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Phone: *
This will only be used to contact you if we have a question about your submission, it will not be used to identify you or be published.
Colour:
Are you blue? If you can see this, leave it blank and get some CSS support.
Enter the words that you see: * This is to prevent our forms from being filled out automatically.
You have failed to correctly identify the words in the box above. Please try again.

More FP News Top Story

Undock

You can comment on most stories on winnipegfreepress.com. You can also agree or disagree with other comments. All you need to do is register and/or login and you can join the conversation and give your feedback.

Have Your Say

New to commenting? Check out our Frequently Asked Questions.

The Winnipeg Free Press does not necessarily endorse any of the views posted. By submitting your comment, you agree to our Terms and Conditions. These terms were revised effective April 16, 2010.