The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample following a three-vehicle motor vehicle accident.
The Crown alleged the defendant refused to comply with a lawful demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.
The defence challenged the lawfulness of the demand on four grounds: lack of subjective reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption, lack of objective reasonableness, absence of evidence of driving within three hours, and failure to convey the mandatory nature of the demand.
The court found the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect based on the defendant's statement regarding his G-2 driver's licence jeopardy and that the defendant was driving within the relevant timeframe.
However, the court found the officer's presentation of the demand created ambiguity regarding its mandatory nature, leaving reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant actually refused or misunderstood his obligations.
