R v Paszczenko; R v Lima – 2010 ONCA 615 (Blair): [61] It is technically unnecessary to resolve this debate, given the analysis outlined above. I am inclined to the view, however, that courts are entitled to take judicial notice (a) of the fact that the majority of human beings eliminate alcohol in a range of 10-20 milligrams of alcohol Read more...
R v Paszczenko; R v Lima – 2010 ONCA 615 (Blair): [27] “Bolus drinking” is generally meant to describe the consumption of large quantities of alcohol immediately or shortly before driving: see Grosse, at p. 788; R. v. Hall (2007), 83 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.), at para. 14. See also Phillips at pp. 158-162, for a description of the “relatively Read more...
R. v. Roberts, 2018 ONCA 411 (Paciocco): [82] In my view, the relevant, settled law can be stated in the following way. Lawfully obtained evidence conscripted from a detainee through roadside sobriety testing is admissible to establish grounds for an arrest or detention, but such evidence is not admissible as proof of actual alcohol consumption or impairment. As I will Read more...