Can evidence of a chemical analysis of a sample taken after the 2-hour period be used in evidence?

In Regina v. Kwasnitza, supra, the learned trial Judge held that the evidence of the analysis taken after the two-hour period was not admissible because of s. 237(1) (b) (formerly s. 224A(1) (b)). Subsections (1) (b) and (2) of s. 237 read: “237. (1) In any proceedings under section 234 or 236, . . . “(b) the result of a chemical analysis of a sample of the breath of the accused (other than a sample taken pursuant to a demand made under subsection 235(1)) or of the blood, urine or other bodily substance of the accused may be admitted in evidence notwithstanding that, before he gave the sample, he was not warned that he need not give the sample or that the result of the analysis of the sample might be used in evidence; . . . “(2) No person is required to give a sample of blood, urine or other bodily substance for chemical analysis for the purposes of this section except breath as required under section 235, and evidence that a person failed or refused to give such a sample or that such a sample was not taken is not admissible nor shall such a failure or refusal or the fact that a sample was not taken be the subject of comment by any person in the proceedings.”