© 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

Instrument malfunction (defence)

Post Bill C-2 we were able to use this "defence", really a negation of the presumption, if we were able to connect that malfunction with the reliability of the measurement result. That "defence" is gone now. Malfunctioning instruments result in conclusive proof, unless we can mount a constitutional challenge. Under Bill C-2, defence lawyers and judges had a lot of trouble with the concept of "malfunction". What is it? It is not just an error message. It should relate to the "function" of an approved instrument, namely to give a reliable QUANTIFICATION of the measurand, blood alcohol concentration, at time of use. Take a close look at the analysis in St-Onge Lamoureux and attempt to understand what "reliability" means in that judgment. I think poor calibration or lack of evidence of good calibration or re-calibration will result in a malfunction. I think poor use of standard operating procedures (individual or systemic) result in malfunction or operator error. Unique body or ambient presentations can result in malfunction (see body temperature in case referred to in St-Onge).