The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the failure of a police officer to specify the exact model number of an approved screening device (ASD) used to test blood alcohol content undermined reasonable grounds for arrest.
The Court relied on precedent from R. v. Gundy to hold that the officer’s testimony that an approved device was used, absent credible contradictory evidence, suffices to establish reasonable grounds.
The Court also addressed whether the arrest was unlawful because it was made for impaired driving rather than excess blood alcohol, concluding the arrest was lawful given the totality of circumstances and the officer’s subjective belief.
Finally, the Court examined alleged breaches of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, finding no breach where the accused was promptly given access to duty counsel despite some problematic comments by the breath technician.
The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.