top of page

DUI Metrology Dictionary

Conditions precedent/presumption/conclusive proof (in the context of 320.31)

Under the old law, we were used to conditions precedent to the presumption of identity (and maybe accuracy) such as "as soon as practicable", at least 15 minutes apart, and first test within two hours. The time of the delict has changed. There is no longer a presumption, there is conclusive proof (that concept needs to be challenged constitutionally.) There is no longer the pre C-2 "defence" (really negation of presumption) of evidence to the contrary and no longer the "defence" (negation of presumption) of lack of reliability of measurement result (operator error, malfunction, or biological presentation). Instead the conclusive proof test is only met if the conditions indicated in 320.31 are met. They include blank test, system calibration test, approved instrument, and qualified technician. We need to carefully litigate each condition precedent to get good case law, different than the old case law. It should be different because there is no longer a St-Onge Lamoureux defence.

Conditions precedent in 320.31(1)(a)
Link to legislation
bottom of page