The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing a delay-based Charter application, in finding no prejudice from delay, in concluding that a lawful breath demand was made, and in imposing a 15‑month driving prohibition.
The court held that the impugned two‑month period was properly characterized as intake delay and that outstanding disclosure did not prevent setting trial dates.
The court further found no evidence that delay prejudiced the appellant’s liberty, security of the person, or ability to make full answer and defence.
The evidence supported the finding that the breath technician effectively made a lawful demand and that the appellant understood the requirement to provide a sample.
The sentence, including a 15‑month driving prohibition and minimum fines, was within the appropriate range and disclosed no error.
