duimetrology.com

  • Home

  • Program List

  • Blog

  • Why

  • Vocab

    • Terminology
  • About

  • DUI Metrology Dictionary

  • Instruments Database Historical

  • DUI-VIDEOS

  • More

    Use tab to navigate through the menu items.
    905-273-3322 or 1-877-273-3322
    • All Posts
    • Cross-examinations of Crown Experts
    • Tips
    • Argument
    • Cross-examinations of QT
    • Uncertainty
    • COBRA
    • Continuity
    Search
    Good Enough for Police v. Good Enough for Charter section 7, 8, and 11(d)
    Stephen Biss
    • 1 day ago
    • 1 min

    Good Enough for Police v. Good Enough for Charter section 7, 8, and 11(d)

    I agree that single point control tests and the Internal Test Procedure (ITP) check are good practice for police. The instrument shutting...
    1 view0 comments
    How to Defend a DUI During the Pandemic
    Stephen Biss
    • 3 days ago
    • 3 min

    How to Defend a DUI During the Pandemic

    My experience is that disclosure has become shakier and shakier during the pandemic. Police and Crowns offices are not doing well in...
    2 views0 comments
    Science Evidence v. Technolgy Evidence
    Stephen Biss
    • Oct 19, 2018
    • 9 min

    Science Evidence v. Technolgy Evidence

    When qualifying an expert witness, Courts need to carefully consider the scope of expertise of the expert. Sometimes it is convenient for...
    21 views0 comments
    Purpose of disclosure or production of maintenance records and data
    Stephen Biss
    • Sep 28, 2018
    • 4 min

    Purpose of disclosure or production of maintenance records and data

    What is the purpose in Stinchcombe/McNeil disclosure or O'Connor production of maintenance records and historical data? Government...
    12 views0 comments
    Attempt to Distinguish R. v. Jackson
    Stephen Biss
    • Jan 20, 2018
    • 8 min

    Attempt to Distinguish R. v. Jackson

    Purpose of this Argument: To distinguish R. v. Jackson on the basis of a differences in facts. Distinguishing the Jackson[92] Decision As...
    2 views0 comments

    © 2022 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

    This site has been built by Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

    For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

    WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

    Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

    Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.

    Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.

    Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.