Client acquitted of impaired driving and driving over .08. Certificate of analysis not admissible as Crown failed to prove that a “copy” was served on accused. Officer testified that he received “copies” from the breath technician who had completed same and compared them to ensure that copy served on the accused was the same as the original. However, no evidence as to how copies made by technician (ie: carbon or photocopy) and in cross-examination the serving officer admitted that he had only compared the “filled in” portions and none of the pre-printed portion of the certificate. Court agreed with defence that it could draw no inference that a “copy” had been served per s. 258(7) of the Criminal Code in absence of evidence as to mode of preparation.
July 2, 2011