The accused was charged with impaired operation and operation with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg following a traffic stop on August 28, 2015.
The trial focused on two issues: whether the accused's Charter rights under s. 10(b) were violated regarding access to counsel of choice, and whether the evidence was sufficient to establish impaired driving.
The court found that while the police failed to take intermediate steps to facilitate contact with the accused's counsel of choice after an initial message went unreturned, the Charter breach was minimally serious and the breath evidence was admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
The accused was acquitted of impaired driving due to insufficient evidence of impairment but convicted of the over 80 charge based on breath analysis results.
