2 total
The defendant was convicted of driving over 80 after the court rejected Charter challenges and the bolus drinking defence.
The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown relied on Intoxilyzer tests taken more than two hours after the defendant was stopped, requiring expert toxicology evidence to establish the defendant's blood alcohol level at the time of driving.
The Crown's expert opined the defendant's BAC was 95 to 140 mg/100ml at the time of driving, based on an assumption of no "bolus drinking." The defendant challenged the admissibility of his weight statement on Charter grounds and argued the Crown failed to prove the absence of bolus drinking.
The court rejected the Charter challenges, admitted the defendant's weight statement, and found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not consume two standard drinks within 20 minutes before driving.
The defendant was convicted.
The court convicted the defendant of driving over 80, finding that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable despite minor roadside delays.
The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The defendant was stopped on Highway 417 in Ottawa after driving at high speed without headlights.
He failed an approved screening device test and was arrested.
The defendant challenged whether the Intoxilyzer breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.
The defence argued that delays at the roadside scene and during a stop on Metcalfe Street to provide rights to counsel and formal breath demand violated the statutory requirement.
The court found that the officer acted reasonably promptly throughout and that the Intoxilyzer tests were administered within a reasonably prompt time in the overall circumstances.
The defendant was found guilty.
