2 total
Breath evidence was excluded and the accused acquitted due to arbitrary detention and gender bias.
The accused was tried on a single count of operating a motor vehicle with blood/alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown called two witnesses: a security guard and the arresting officer who was also a qualified breath technician.
The defence raised Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 9 and 10(b), seeking remedies under section 24(2).
The court found that the accused was psychologically detained at her residential door without being advised of her rights to counsel, and that she was arbitrarily detained in a locked cell for 89 minutes after being determined releasable.
The court excluded the breath evidence due to the serious Charter breaches and the accused was acquitted.
The court convicted the accused of impaired driving, finding no section 10(b) Charter breach when police provided alternative counsel options after his chosen lawyer was unavailable.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath samples and statements on the grounds that his Charter rights to counsel were violated.
The court conducted a blended voir dire to determine whether the defendant's section 10(b) rights were breached and whether the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defendant's counsel of choice was unavailable as he had been appointed to the bench.
The police provided alternative counsel options, and the defendant consulted with another lawyer of his choosing.
The court found no Charter breach and convicted the defendant on both counts.
