R. v. Gibson, 2008 SCC 16
Click here [3] to link to the full judgment.
(Criminal law / Evidence / Breathalyzer test)
G and another, M, were charged after failing a breathalyzer test.  At their trials, G and M testified that based on their pattern of drinking, their blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was not over the legal limit when driving.  Expert evidence suggested a range for their respective BACs which "straddled" the legal limit.  G's acquittal was overturned on appeal, and M was convicted.  The Court dismissed both appeals, essentially finding that the expert evidence and drinking pattern evidence did not necessitate acquittals.  However, the Court diverged on the reasons for this ruling.
Majority/Concurring/Dissent: 4/3/2