The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a sample of his breath into an approved screening device (ASD) on June 4, 2012.
A police officer conducting a RIDE spot-check observed signs of impairment and made a lawful demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.
The defendant refused to comply.
The main issue was whether the officer's failure to provide complete information about the consequences of non-compliance affected the validity of the demand or provided a reasonable excuse for the refusal.
The court found that the defendant's refusal was intentional and voluntary, and that neither the Criminal Code nor common law requires police to provide complete information about consequences.
The defendant was found guilty.
