The appellant appealed his convictions for driving over eighty, dangerous driving, and impaired driving.
He argued that the police violated his s. 8 Charter rights by placing Centre of Forensic Sciences seals on vials of his blood, which had been drawn for medical purposes, prior to obtaining a search warrant.
He also argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the issue of bolus drinking.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the brief sealing of the vials did not interfere with the appellant's spatial, physical, or informational privacy interests and thus did not constitute an unreasonable seizure.
The court also found the jury charge on the burden of proof regarding bolus drinking was sufficient.