The accused challenged impaired driving and over-80 charges arising from a R.I.D.E. stop, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and seeking exclusion of breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The court held that the combination of driving through the spot check, admission of recent drinking, odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, nervousness, and staggering gait provided an objective basis for the officer's subjective belief that the accused was impaired.
The accused also sought a stay under s. 24(1), alleging late disclosure of the breath room video deprived him of the opportunity to seek entry into a reduced suspension ignition interlock program.
The court held that any trial fairness prejudice from late disclosure was cured by adjournment and that the inability to apply for the program did not engage a s. 7-protected right because driving is a privilege, not a protected liberty interest.
Convictions were entered.
