The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (exceed 80) following a roadside sobriety check.
A police officer observed the defendant exiting a bar at 2:39 am, conducted an approved screening device (ASD) test at 2:49 am after the defendant reported consuming a shot of tequila at approximately 2:35 am, and obtained a "Fail" result.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of the ASD result on two grounds: (1) violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter by failing to facilitate contact with counsel at the roadside, and (2) potential unreliability of the ASD test due to insufficient waiting time to account for mouth alcohol contamination.
The court found no violation of the right to counsel and, assuming arguendo a potential breach regarding the mouth alcohol protocol, concluded that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The defendant was found guilty.
