• Stephen Biss

Bill C-46 Rids Us of the Concept of "Suitability"

There are a number of old cases such as Harding, Corbett, Squires that suggest that the Qualified Technician is the final judge of "suitability" of the alcohol standard. See the section in Justice Kenkel's book on suitability of the solution.

I've argued in Court under the current C-2 legislation that the real issue is the connection between the clear colourless liquid in the Mason jar of the wet-bath simulator and the Certificate of the Analyst. The Crown might be able to prima facie prove that connection quickly through a presumption under section 258(1)(g) and/or 258(1)(f) (or the Crown might argue the presumption of reliability in 258(1)(c) solves the problem) but the connection needs to be proven.

"Suitability" used to relate to "ampoules" in a Breathalyzer 900 or 900A. The ampoules needed to be gauged for size using a template to determine suitability for use. Back then it made sense to use the word "suitable" to describe the connection.

It doesn't make sense any more and that's why Bill C-46 uses the wording in 320.18 "an alcohol standard that is certified by an analyst". I am arguing that this modern approach to interpreting the C-2 legislation on "suitability" (and the C-46 new 320.18) is required because of section 4(1) of the Weights and Measures Act.


2 views0 comments

© 2020 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.
DrugTest® 5000 is also a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc.. DrugTest® 5000 is "approved drug screening equipment" 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.