top of page

Downloaded Data is a Key Source of Information to Find Out Reason for Re-calibration

Updated: May 21, 2022


The approved instrument referred to, in the case below, was sent out for a recalibration, a few days after the client's subject tests. We wanted to know WHY. What caused the need? Were consistently low cal. checks after the client's tests the reason? Were consistently low cal. checks before and after the client's tests the reason? Was there a significant change, over time, in the precision of the instrument, somewhere between March 6, 2015, April 14, 2015, and May 20, 2015?


Purposes of this cross-examination:


Confirming why disclosure of COBRA or other downloaded data is relevant to understanding the reasons why an instrument needed to be sent to the factory for re-calibration.


To establish the need for an O'Connor order to produce documentation of what was meant by "Consistently low cal checks."


To establish the need for an O'Connor order to produce the technicians' contemporaneous documentation that went with the periodic inspections of March 6, 2015, April 14th, 2015, and 20th of May 2015.

Q. So, I’m still looking at – going back to Exhibit 12 page 1. [Maintenance log of local police service for this Intoxilyzer]


Excerpt from Exhibit 12

A. Yes. Q. Periodic inspection concludes: "consistently low cal-checks. Requires recalibration." So, I – I’m just looking for where’s the data that could possibly – again, using the methodology for determining accuracy and precision, as defined by the Centre of Forensic Sciences, or as deemed by the Centre of Forensic Sciences, where’s the data that could possibly have supported consistently low cal-checks requires recalibration as a decision? A. That would be in the downloaded data that you have. There’s no hard copies that were provided.


Q. But in the download data that we looked at, there as nothing – again, using your deeming method – or, I’m sorry, the Centre’s deeming method in terms of checking accuracy and precision, there’s nothing there to indicate a problem with accuracy or precision, and certainly not a problem with accuracy and precision that would cause a need to send the instrument out for recalibration. A. You would have to ask the author of this document what he meant by that. Maybe he’s referring – if there’s nothing in the – there’s no additional information in the downloaded data, then maybe he’s referring to the consistently low calibration checks that are occurring during breath tests or stand alone calibration checks. Q. And we would need to see the data that was generated that went along with these periodic inspections of March 6, 2015, April 14th, 2015, and 20th of May 2015 in order to see if there was data that supported that decision. Try and figure out what it is that caused that decision that was made to take the instrument out of service and send it for recalibration by the manufacturer. A. That is correct.




If you are a member of the public, please don't attempt to use what you see or read at this site in Court. It is not evidence. The author is not a scientist. The author has a great deal of experience in cross-examining scientists about these issues, but the author is not a scientist. Hire a criminal lawyer in private practice in Ontario. Your lawyer can retain an expert. The author is a retired lawyer, not a lawyer in private practice. Read the statement of the purpose of this web site below.

© 2025 Allbiss Lawdata Ltd.

This site has been built by Allbiss Lawdata Ltd. All rights reserved. This is not a government web site.

For more information respecting this database or to report misuse contact: Allbiss Lawdata Ltd., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada, 905-273-3322. The author and the participants make no representation or warranty  whatsoever as to the authenticity and reliability of the information contained herein.  WARNING: All information contained herein is provided  for the purpose of discussion and peer review only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. The authors disclaim any and all liability resulting from reliance upon such information. You are strongly encouraged to seek professional legal advice before relying upon any of the information contained herein. Legal advice should be sought directly from a properly retained lawyer or attorney. 

WARNING: Please do not attempt to use any text, image, or video that you see on this site in Court. These comments, images, and videos are NOT EVIDENCE. The Courts will need to hear evidence from a properly qualified expert. The author is not a scientist. The author is not an expert. These pages exist to promote discussion among defence lawyers.

Intoxilyzer®  is a registered trademark of CMI, Inc. The Intoxilyzer® 5000C is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

Breathalyzer® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc., Breathalyzer Division. The owner of the trademark is Robert F. Borkenstein and Draeger Safety, Inc. has leased the exclusive rights of use from him. The Breathalyzer® 900 and Breathalyzer® 900A were "approved instruments" in Canada.

Alcotest® is a registered trademark of Draeger Safety, Inc. The Alcotest® 7410 GLC and 6810 are each an "approved screening device" in Canada.

Datamaster®  is a registered trademark of National Patent Analytical Systems, Inc.  The BAC Datamaster® C  is an "approved instrument" in Canada.

bottom of page