Amber Rose Lepchuk

The accused was charged with obstructing a police constable by providing false information during a lawful police investigation at an airport.

The accused admitted to giving a false name to the officer but argued that no obstruction occurred because the officer quickly learned his correct identity from another officer within approximately two minutes.

The court found that the accused's false statement did in fact obstruct the officer in the execution of her duty, as the officer was diverted from her investigative duties to check the false name provided.

The court rejected the argument that only prolonged or significant obstruction constitutes the offence, holding that any lie that in fact obstructs police duties satisfies the actus reus requirement.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in blood following a traffic stop on December 18, 2010.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that he was arbitrarily detained when directed to sit in the police car during computer checks, finding that while the detention may not have been reasonably necessary, the evidence should not be excluded under the test in R v Aucoin.

The court also found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds for arrest and the breath demand based on observed signs of impairment.