A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision has left one of the most debated impaired driving issues in Canada unresolved. While R. v. Raffia raised important questions about reasonable excuse and refusal prosecutions, the Court ultimately declined to address the issue that many lawyers were watching most closely.
In this episode of Driving Law, Kyla Lee and Paul Doroshenko discuss the appeal decision in R. v. Raffia and why the Court chose not to weigh in on the controversial reasonable excuse analysis from the trial judgment. While the Court addressed numerous appeal grounds relating to jury instructions, voluntariness, and procedural issues, it specifically declined to rule on whether the trial judge’s interpretation of reasonable excuse was correct.
The discussion then shifts to a newly published Canadian study examining wrongful convictions linked to forensic science. The study reviewed dozens of wrongful conviction cases and found that the most common problem was not faulty laboratory testing, but rather experts overstating what forensic results could actually prove. This raises broader concerns about how scientific evidence is presented and interpreted in criminal proceedings.
Kyla and Paul explore why these findings are particularly relevant in impaired driving cases, where prosecutions often depend on forensic evidence such as breath tests, blood analysis, and drug testing. They also discuss the assumptions built into many forms of forensic evidence and whether courts place too much confidence in scientific conclusions that may be less certain than they appear.
The episode highlights the ongoing tension between scientific evidence, legal standards, and the risk of wrongful convictions. While forensic science remains a powerful investigative tool, understanding its limitations is essential to ensuring fair outcomes in the justice system.
Stream Episode 457 for the full discussion.
