R. v. Cyr-Langlois 2018 SCC 54

Judgment Rendered: October 17, 2018
Written Reasons Issued: December 6, 2018
Neutral Citation: 2018 SCC 54
On Appeal From: Court of Appeal of Quebec
Case Information: 37760

Breakdown of the Decision:

• Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Richard Wagner allowed the appeal. Justices Abella, Moldaver, Karakatsanis, Gascon, Brown, Rowe, and Martin agreed.
• Dissenting Opinion: Justice Suzanne Côté would have dismissed the appeal, citing reasonable doubt about the reliability of the test due to procedural issues.

Summary of the Case:

Background:

• In 2012, Mr. Cyr-Langlois was stopped on suspicion of drunk driving. At the police station, his blood alcohol level was tested using a breathalyzer device.
• Standard procedure involves taking two breath samples about 20 minutes apart. The officer who administered the tests did not stay in the same room with Mr. Cyr-Langlois before each test; another officer did.
• Mr. Cyr-Langlois’s blood alcohol level was above the legal limit in both samples, resulting in charges of driving under the influence and driving with blood alcohol over 80 mg per 100 mL.

Legal Issue:

• The appeal focused on the “over 80” charge, questioning whether the breathalyzer test was reliable given procedural lapses.

Court Decisions:

• Summary Conviction Judge: Found Mr. Cyr-Langlois not guilty, agreeing that the procedural lapse created reasonable doubt.
• Superior Court: Overturned the not-guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
• Court of Appeal: Reinstated the not-guilty verdict.

Supreme Court’s Majority Opinion:

• The Supreme Court canceled the not-guilty verdict and ordered a new trial.
• It held that Mr. Cyr-Langlois’s argument was speculative and did not constitute reasonable doubt.
• The defense needed to provide concrete evidence showing the breathalyzer test’s reliability was compromised, such as proof of burping or digestive issues before the test.
• Without such evidence, the theoretical possibility that something might have affected the test was insufficient to raise reasonable doubt.

Dissenting Opinion:

• Justice Côté argued that the procedural irregularity raised reasonable doubt about the test’s reliability, and the appeal should have been dismissed.

Key Takeaways:

• Reasonable Doubt: Must be based on concrete evidence, not mere speculation or theoretical possibilities.
• Breathalyzer Tests: Their results are presumed reliable unless the defense can show specific evidence of procedural faults affecting the test outcome.
• Standard of Proof: The decision underscores the high standard required to prove reasonable doubt in criminal cases.

This case reaffirms that speculative arguments without supporting evidence do not meet the threshold for reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases involving breathalyzer tests for drunk driving.