© 2019 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., 303-470 Hensall Circle, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, L5A 3V4, 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.

DUI Metrology Dictionary

Contradiction of the instrument's result (defence)

Pre Bill C-2, the defence could rebut the presumption of identity by leading a defence of the client's evidence of alcohol consumption together with evidence of a toxicologist declared an expert on absorption, elimination, and distribution of ethyl alcohol in the human body. The expert would then do a calculation of blood alcohol concentration at time of driving or care or control which could raise a reasonable doubt, pre C-2, as to the Intoxilyzer results. No evidence would be led as to the reasons for the unreliability of the Intoxilyzer on the particular occasion. Many Judges disliked the defence raising issues about the Intoxilyzer reliability because all they were concerned about was reasonable doubt based on drinking scenario and toxicological evidence. Critics labelled this as the "two beer" defence and convinced Parliament to eliminate this defence of truth.