The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample at the roadside.
The Crown alleged that Constable Uppal made lawful demands for a breath sample, which the accused refused.
The central issue was whether the demands were lawful under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, considering the "forthwith" requirement and the accused's right to counsel.
The court found that both an informal demand and a formal demand were lawful and timely, and that the accused's refusal constituted the offence.
The court rejected arguments that the absence of specific language rendered the demands invalid and found that the realistic availability of duty counsel did not support a finding that the demands were premature.
