The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.
The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and a Centre of Forensic Sciences report on a urine sample.
The court found that while the accused's performance on physical coordination tests and the presence of multiple drugs in his urine were consistent with impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired at the time of the incident.
The lack of expert evidence regarding the specific effects of the detected drugs, the absence of evidence of impaired driving, and the accused's extreme fatigue as an alternative explanation for poor test performance created reasonable doubt.
The accused was acquitted.
