2 total
Breath evidence excluded and accused acquitted after video contradicted officer's grounds for reasonable suspicion.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.
The Crown relied on breath readings of 140 and 130 obtained through an approved screening device and an intoxilyzer.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence, alleging four Charter violations under section 8.
The court found that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make the initial demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.
The objective evidence from an in-car video contradicted the officer's testimony regarding slurred speech and manner of driving.
The court concluded that the smell of alcohol alone from a vehicle with another occupant was insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion.
The breath evidence was excluded under section 24(2) as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and the defendant was acquitted.
Appeal allowed where trial judge failed to provide reasons for denying Charter delay application.
The appellant appealed convictions for impaired operation and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.
At trial, the appellant brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay, which the trial judge dismissed with brief oral comments and a promise of written reasons.
Nearly three and a half years later, no written reasons were produced.
The appeal court held that the absence of reasoned reasons prevented meaningful appellate review of the s. 11(b) ruling.
The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted back to the trial court for proper determination.
