In Hannan v. The Queen (1971) 1970 CanLII 580 (SK QB), 2 W.W.R. 212 Sirois J. held where a charge under section 222 had been laid against an accused and subsequently notice and a copy of certificate were given him, but at his trial the charge under section 222 had been withdrawn and a new charge under section 224 substituted, it could not be said reasonable notice had been given the accused. I think this is so. As Sirois J. said at p. 218, "There is no argument that the evidential value of the certificate varies greatly when tendered under section 222 as compared to section 224". An accused should have a reasonable time to consider whether he wishes to apply to have the analyst called and whether he would or not might well depend upon the section under which he is charged.
"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.alexsei.com.