The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown relied on breath test readings of 136 and 131 milligrams and expert evidence extrapolating the accused's blood alcohol content at the time of driving.
The court found that while the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds, the Crown failed to prove the absence of bolus drinking, rendering the expert opinion unreliable.
Additionally, the evidence of impairment was inconsistent and frail, with minimal evidence of bad driving.
The accused was acquitted on both counts.
