The defendant, Tomas Muliuolis, was charged with impaired operation of a vehicle by drug.
The court addressed Charter issues under sections 10(b) (right to counsel) and 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), and the substantive issue of impairment.
The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the officer's failure to re-caution the accused upon new charges with changed jeopardy.
A breach of section 8 was also found because the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the DRE demand, largely due to credibility issues with the officer's testimony and inconsistent notes.
Consequently, the DRE evaluation and urine analysis evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.
Without this evidence, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.
