The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, arguing the trial judge failed to consider a requested remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach relating to an Intoxilizer demand.
The alleged breach arose from an officer’s imprecise description of the approved screening device used during a roadside R.I.D.E. stop.
The trial judge had admitted the breath test results under s. 24(2), finding the breach technical, in good faith, minimally intrusive, and producing reliable evidence.
On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s rejection of the s. 24(1) remedy was implicit in his findings and that denying the Crown reliance on the presumption of identity would have been disproportionate.
The court emphasized that minor technical breaches do not justify remedies that would effectively mandate acquittal.
