Gurdev Singh: Ontario; (Aftermath 3): Bulletin: Veteran defence counsel Ed Prutschi predicts that his acquittal because of a judge's rejection of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breathalyzer reading after hearing expert evidence about its forensic reliability will have a "ripple effect."..."On the one hand, this is a single case in the Ontario Court of Justice that creates no binding precedent on other judges. Those who have been convicted at the hands of the 8000C in the past have little or no recourse to reopen their cases. Crown attorneys and police officers are undoubtedly moving ahead with new and ongoing cases with no change in protocol. But, like a pebble tossed into the glassy calm of a lake, the ripples from this case — as it winds its way through the inevitable appeals — risk creating a tsunami that could flood courtrooms across Canada for years to come." Toronto Sun.

"Remember when you finally learned that the Tooth Fairy wasn’t real? Criminal lawyers across Canada woke up Monday to discover that the infallibility of the instrument at the heart of nearly every impaired driving prosecution was as much a myth as a winged insect secreting loonies under the pillows of gap-toothed children.  For decades, expert after expert and case after case have entrenched the view that the breath testing machines operating at police detachments from St. John’s to Victoria are highly reliable scientific instruments....Until now. A Brampton judge, after hearing days of competing expert evidence, ruled that the devices are missing a critical measurement, leaving the court with a lack of confidence in the accuracy of the breath test results. Battles between expert toxicologists are nothing new to the impaired driving field, but what makes this case so unique is that the defence attack came from within the Crown’s own scientific fortress. Ben Joseph was a forensic toxicologist for 13 years at the Centre of Forensic Sciences — the gold standard relied upon for courtroom testimony by police and Crown attorneys. Joseph claims that, while employed at the centre, he and other toxicologists acknowledged the absence of this “uncertainty of measurement” and raised concerns in regards to the implications this had on the accuracy of the Intoxilyzer 8000C yet nothing was done. The Crown called its own expert from the centre who argued that the absence of this calculation had no impact on the reliability of the instrument. The judge disagreed. On the one hand, this is a single case in the Ontario Court of Justice that creates no binding precedent on other judges. Those who have been convicted at the hands of the 8000C in the past have little or no recourse to reopen their cases. Crown attorneys and police officers are undoubtedly moving ahead with new and ongoing cases with no change in protocol. But, like a pebble tossed into the glassy calm of a lake, the ripples from this case — as it winds its way through the inevitable appeals — risk creating a tsunami that could flood courtrooms across Canada for years to come."
 http://www.torontosun.com/2016/05/02/breathalyzer-ruling-will-have-ripple-effect