Cara Sweeny

The defendant was charged with refusal to comply with an approved roadside screening device (ASD) demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the defendant refused to provide a suitable breath sample after being lawfully demanded to do so.

The defence challenged both the validity of the demand and the Crown's proof of the requisite mens rea (intentional non-compliance).

The court found the ASD demand was lawful and valid based on reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption.

However, the court acquitted the defendant on the basis that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's failure to produce a suitable sample was intentional, as opposed to a genuine inability to comply despite sincere efforts.