The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the lawful limit.
At trial, the accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the approved screening device demand and the breath sample obtained.
The court considered whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code and whether any breach would warrant exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The court found that while there was a potential delay in making the demand, the "forthwith" requirement was satisfied and, in any event, the evidence would not be excluded as the breach was minimal, the real-life impact on the accused's Charter rights was negligible, and excluding highly probative evidence on a serious offence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.
