The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a conveyance with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit, contrary to s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
She argued that the trial judge erred in finding no breach of her s. 8 Charter right arising from video surveillance of cell toilets during her detention, relying on the principles in R. v. Mok.
The appeal court found that police took reasonable steps to mitigate the privacy intrusion by informing the appellant of the surveillance, offering privacy gowns and blankets, and posting signage.
The court held the application judge did not reverse the burden of proof and correctly found no s. 8 breach.
The appeal was dismissed.
