The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).
The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence on the basis that her section 8 Charter rights were violated when she was video and audio recorded using the toilet in a holding cell.
The court found a breach of section 8 rights but declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence.
On the merits, the court acquitted on the impaired driving charge but convicted on the over 80 charge based on the admissible breath test results.
