The accused was charged with impaired driving after being found asleep in the driver's seat of his vehicle at a traffic light.
The Crown relied on observations made by the arresting officer at the roadside, including the smell of alcohol, red eyes, slurred speech, and unsteadiness.
However, observations made at the police station approximately 23-25 minutes later showed no signs of impairment, and the breath technician's observations approximately 1 hour and 23 minutes later similarly showed no impairment indicators except for watery, red-rimmed eyes.
The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, noting that the discrepancy between roadside and station observations, combined with the absence of any evidence of actual vehicle operation, created reasonable doubt.
The court concluded that the symptoms observed at the roadside could have been attributable to extreme tiredness rather than alcohol impairment.