The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide breath samples for analysis by an approved instrument contrary to subsection 254(5) of the Criminal Code.
The defence raised two main issues: first, that the Crown failed to prove an unequivocal refusal, and second, that the breath technician violated the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights by denying a second consultation with Duty Counsel.
The court found that the accused's entire course of conduct constituted a failure or refusal, and that no Charter violation occurred as the accused did not clearly request a second consultation and the circumstances did not trigger the "changed circumstances" exception under R. v. Sinclair.
The court found the accused guilty.
