In this impaired driving jury trial, the court determined whether the accused's bolus drinking theory had an air of reality sufficient to be left with the jury.
Both Crown and defence toxicologists agreed on the blood alcohol calculations and on the quantity and timing of alcohol that would have been required for the theory to operate.
Even taking the accused's and supporting witness's evidence at its highest, the factual record could not support the necessary recent consumption.
The court held that leaving bolus drinking with the jury would be confusing and unsupported by the evidence, and instructed the jury not to consider it if they accepted the toxicology evidence.
