cst. Doidge was driving when he ovserved a vehicle through his read view mirror apparently weaving from side to side on the highway. The constable subsequently followed this vehicle until it turned onto Commissioner's road where the weaving was observed to continue although to a lesser extent. He stopped the vehicle and found that the accused had bloodshot eyes and an order of alcohol. He was arrested. The Crown tendered a certificate of the breathalyser operator, which was refused. "i refuse to admit this certificate in evidence because the conditions presedent to its acceptance as evidence consitituting proof of the proportion of alcohol in the accused's blood at the time of the offense alleged had not first been proved in order to support the cerficate evidence of chemical analysis.

In this case however we do not have to decide that point for it is our view that apart from the contents of the certificate there was evidence from which any Court could logically conclude that this accused recieved a demand and that a sample of his breath had been taken. According to the stated case, a demand was made by officer Doidge to the accused requiring him to deliver a sample of his breath into a breathalyzer machine. Doidge then took the accused to the London Detachment office and handed him over to the custody of Cst. Berdan, who was described by Doidge as a breathalyer operator. Having regard to the special type of operator and the form of certificate that is contemplated by s. 237 this was a significant circumstance with respect to the issue. Thus we are of the opinion that on teh evidnce and at the stage when the certificate was tendered to him the only logical infereence which could be drawn was that a breath sample had been taken from the accused and that it was taken pursuent to a demand proved to have been made under s. 235. With that said, in our view the certificate ought to have been admitted in evidnce.