Mr. Mansingani was stopped by police in the north end of Toronto, arrested and taken back for breath samples. At trial he alleged that his s. 7 Charter right was breached because the police deliberately failed to videotape the initial “quality assurance checks” of the Intoxilyzer, as well as the operation of the Intoxilyzer during the two tests.  Instead, the videotape frame was focused solely on Mr. Mansingani who was seated to the left of the Intoxilyzer.  As a result, it captured only a small portion of the Intoxilyzer’s left side and an equally small portion of the operator’s left side.  If the camera angle had been moved farther to the right, it was argued that that the video frame would have captured more of the front of the Intoxilyzer and more of the operator who was seated at the machine. The trial judge dismissed the Charter argument and the appeal court agreed: [The Court is] simply in no position to decide the relevant issues based on the existing factual record.  Whether the police decision, concerning changing or not changing the angle of the camera, was deliberate, negligent, pragmatic or principled, is simply a matter of speculation on this record. Furthermore, the degree of prejudice caused to the defence by this decision or non-decision is equally speculative. R. v. Mansingani, 2012 ONSC 6509