Bruce Ritter

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The central issue was whether breath samples were taken “as soon as practicable” as required to rely on the statutory presumption.

Although the second sample was taken within the two‑hour statutory window, there was an unexplained 28‑minute delay between the first and second tests, exceeding the typical 17–20 minute interval.

The appeal court held that the trial judge erred by failing to properly address whether the second test met the “as soon as practicable” requirement despite the unexplained delay.

As the Crown failed to establish this requirement, the conviction could not stand.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown relied on breath samples taken at the detachment to establish the offence.

The sole issue at trial was whether the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code to invoke the presumption of identity.

The defence challenged an unexplained 28-minute delay between the first and second breath samples.

The court found that the entire chain of events from the time of the offence to the taking of the first sample was reasonable, and that the Crown was not required to provide a detailed explanation for every minute of custody.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found a warrantless search of the accused's car violated s. 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence.

The Court of Appeal reversed this, admitting the evidence and entering a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada agreed the evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) as it was real, pre-existing evidence and the breach was not flagrant.

However, because the accused had not had the opportunity to put forward a defence at trial, the Court allowed the appeal in part to order a new trial rather than entering a conviction.