The Crown appealed an acquittal arising from impaired driving charges where the trial judge found the arrest was premature due to insufficient reasonable and probable grounds.
The appellate court held that the trial judge erred in law by applying an overly stringent standard when assessing whether the officer had objective grounds for arrest and a breath demand.
The court further held that the trial judge failed to conduct the required Charter s. 24(2) analysis after finding a potential Charter breach.
The right to counsel under s. 10(b) was a live issue and required proper consideration, particularly regarding the accused’s request to contact counsel of choice.
The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.
