The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the timing of breath tests, the privacy of counsel consultation, the failure to video-record breath tests, and the video surveillance of the holding cell.
The court found no Charter violations with respect to reasonable and probable grounds, reasons for arrest, timing of breath tests, or counsel consultation.
The court found that while video surveillance of the holding cell raised privacy concerns, there was no infringement of the accused's section 8 rights in the specific circumstances, as the accused had a reduced expectation of privacy while in custody and no part of his genitals was visible on the recording.
The court rejected applications for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that admission of the breath test results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.