The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The defence challenged the lawfulness of the approved screening device demand on two Charter grounds: first, that the accused's initial statement was statutorily compelled under the Highway Traffic Act, and second, that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the demand, thereby infringing section 8 rights.
The defence also argued that evidence of the accused's alcohol consumption demonstrated her blood alcohol concentration was below the legal limit at the time of driving.
The court rejected all defence arguments, finding no statutory compulsion, that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable suspicion, and that the accused's evidence was unreliable and did not raise a reasonable doubt.
