top of page

Does the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the rights and freedoms set out in it, when Courts construe and apply section 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

  1. Section 7 transparency in the process of quantitative analysis for a forensic purpose?

  2. Section 8 searches to determine a quantitative analysis result using equipment that is at best capable of a qualitative analysis?

  3. Section 11d fairness in legal presumptions that have become irrebuttable conclusive proof?

  4. Section 15 adverse treatment of older racialized women who suffer from lung disease and therefore have a lower Blood Breath Ratio (BBR) or individuals with other physical disabilities?

Are these rights subject  to reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, if the section 320 limit prescribed by law, contradicts Canada's Weights and Measures Act,  international treaties (the Metre Convention), international vocabularies (VIM,VIML), international associations (CGPM, BIPM, OIML), international scientific (ISO) and legal recommendations and standards (OIML), and our history (Magna Carta)?

Does the laudable purpose of ending drunk driving, override basic rules of science and law in a free and democratic society?

Why is there no safety valve to deal with:

  1. physiological presentations not contemplated by the design of the instrument?

  2. environmental presentations not contemplated by the design of the instrument?

  3. aging instruments suffering from uncertainty growth?

  4. no metrological authority or metrological supervision resulting in sloppy police measurement?


Should police-policy-based forensic science serve as a foundational base for Court-recognized expert evidence (Gubbins dissent)?

Do we accept police-policy-based forensic science where the opinion is hypothesis without empirical testing, without publcation of results, and without the possibility of refutation by replication?

bottom of page