2 total
The court convicted the defendant of impaired driving and over 80, finding breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and "over 80" after police found his extensively damaged vehicle stationary on an exit ramp with the motor running.
The defendant challenged whether the Crown could rely on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(c) that breath readings conclusively prove blood alcohol concentration, arguing the samples were not taken as soon as practicable and the first sample was not taken within two hours of the alleged offence.
The defendant also challenged the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000C and argued the evidence of impairment was insufficient.
The court found the Crown had proven the temporal preconditions beyond a reasonable doubt, the police acted reasonably in obtaining the samples, there was no Charter breach, and the evidence of impairment was sufficient.
The defendant was found guilty on both counts.
The court convicted the defendant of impaired care and control, finding a delay in providing right to counsel was justified by a potential medical emergency.
The defendant was charged with impaired care and control and driving with excess alcohol care and control following a dispatch report of an impaired driver.
An officer located the defendant's vehicle in her driveway with the defendant slumped over the steering wheel.
The defendant claimed she had entered the vehicle only to retrieve her purse after consuming two glasses of wine upon arriving home.
The court rejected the defendant's evidence and found she had entered the vehicle with intent to put it in motion.
The court also rejected a Charter s. 10(b) rights argument regarding a 20-minute delay before rights to counsel were provided, finding the delay justified by legitimate medical concerns regarding a possible diabetic emergency.
The defendant was convicted of both charges, with the excess alcohol charge provisionally stayed pursuant to R. v. Kienapple.
