The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether statements made by the accused to the breath technician during breath testing were voluntary.
The Crown bore the burden of proving voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.
Although there was no coercion, oppression, threats, inducements, or promises, the court found that the breath technician failed to provide a primary caution before asking questions and engaged in trickery to induce statements.
The technician asked the accused to jump on a scale, which is not part of the breath testing procedure, and falsely represented that information about the collision was needed for an insurance report.
The court excluded all statements made to the breath technician as involuntary.
