The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The accused brought a Charter application arguing that his rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) were infringed and that evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).
The court found no breach of section 10(a) but found a three-minute delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel constituted a breach of section 10(b).
However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) analysis, finding the breach was not serious enough to exclude the evidence.
The court also addressed the availability of the presumption of identity under transitional provisions and found it remained available for legacy cases.
The accused was found guilty.
