EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY - COURT REJECTS "EXTERNAL PRINTER" ARGUMENT

Counsel for Mr. Sergalis argued at trial that the use of an external printer for the Intoxilyzer in question had the potential to render the printout of Mr. Sergalis’s blood alcohol concentrations inaccurate. The attempt to use that to show “that the instrument was malfunctioning or was operated improperly” was rejected by both the trial judge and the Ontario Court of Appeal:

In this case, the intoxilyzer results were printed to an external printer.  The technician therefore did not check whether the intoxilyzer’s internal printer was operating properly before conducting the test, as required where an internal printer is used.  The technician did not check the external printer before operating the intoxilyzer, but testified that the external printer functioned properly. The trial judge was satisfied that the intoxilyzer was in proper working order and that the external printer accurately recorded the appellant’s readings and the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge upheld his decision.  We see no basis for interfering with the Summary Conviction Appeal Court judge’s decision. R. v. Sergalis, 2014 ONCA 624