J. Melo

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop at 2:06 a.m.

The court examined three categories of constitutional issues: (1) the lawfulness of the initial detention; (2) compliance with section 254(2) of the Criminal Code regarding the Approved Screening Device demand; and (3) the adequacy of efforts to contact counsel of choice.

The court found multiple Charter violations including a brief section 10(a) violation, a section 254(2) violation due to delay in making the demand, and a section 10(b) violation regarding insufficient attempts to contact counsel of choice.

Despite these violations, the court admitted the breath samples under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion was not required to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams per one hundred millilitres of blood.

The sole issue was whether breath samples taken by an approved technician using an Intoxilyzer 8000C were taken "as soon as practicable" after the alleged offence, as required by the Criminal Code for the statutory presumption to apply.

The defendant argued the tests were delayed by approximately 22 minutes to allow consultation with counsel, despite his initial waiver of the right to counsel, and by approximately 28 minutes in notifying the technician.

The court found the Crown established the tests were taken as soon as practicable and convicted the defendant.