The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in her blood exceeded the legal limit.
The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and that the breathalyser instrument was operated improperly, thereby rebutting the presumption of accuracy.
The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the ASD demand based on observed signs of impairment and the accused's admission of alcohol consumption.
While the court found that the qualified technician improperly operated the Intoxilyzer by performing the calibration check too soon and failing to review printouts, the court determined that the Crown had satisfied the burden of establishing reliability of the results based on the subject test record and the technician's credible explanation for the initial calibration anomaly.
The accused was found guilty.
