The appellant argues that “affected” is not synonymous with “impaired” and that the statutorily required standard is “impaired”. This is a distinction recognized in R v. Baines, [2002] B.C.J. No. 3077 (Prov. Ct.). In Baines, a breath certificate was excluded on the basis that the police officer’s notes reflected an opinion that the accused’s ability had been affected, rather than impaired, by the consumption of alcohol.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.