B. Starkman

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The police officer stopped the accused's vehicle based on a 'hunch' that the occupants were involved in recent car break-ins.

The Crown conceded that the stop was an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the Charter breach was serious and had a significant impact on the accused's rights.

The court excluded the breathalyzer readings and evidence of impairment under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The main issues at trial were whether the accused was properly served with the certificate of a qualified technician and whether the evidence complied with the new retrospective impaired driving provisions under s. 320.31 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the arresting officer properly served the certificate, noting that the accused's refusal to sign effectively constituted a refusal of service.

The court also held that the accumulation of Crown evidence, including testimony from two breath technicians, satisfied the new statutory requirements.

The accused was found guilty.

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

During the breath testing procedure, the Intoxilyzer 8000C generated an 'ambient fail' message.

The accused argued that the breath technician failed to follow the instrument's manual, meaning the device was 'operated improperly' and the Crown could not rely on the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the manual's instructions were not mandatory and that the technician's actions did not call into question the reliability of the breath sample results.

The presumption of identity applied, resulting in a finding of guilt.