The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit under the Criminal Code.
The appeal argued that the Crown failed to establish that the accused understood the breath demand made by the arresting officer, a prerequisite for the admission of breath test evidence.
The court held that while evidence established that a demand was made and complied with, there was no evidence that the accused understood the nature of the demand.
Without evidence satisfying the informational component required for lawful breath demands, the statutory preconditions for admitting the breath certificate were not met.
The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and an acquittal was entered.
