The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 263(1) of the Criminal Code.
The defence challenged whether the Crown had established that the breath samples were received directly into an approved instrument, as required by section 258(1)(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code.
The trial judge found that the Crown had satisfied this requirement through circumstantial evidence, including the officer's testimony regarding the Intoxilyzer 8000C, the mouthpiece mechanism, the two samples provided, and the resulting readings.
The accused was found guilty.
