The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of refusing to comply with a roadside screening device demand.
The trial judge had found that the officer's incorrect advice—that a refusal to blow carries the same penalty as a failure—tainted the otherwise valid demand.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the initial information was incomplete, the officer subsequently clarified that the respondent would be charged if he refused.
The court concluded the demand was unequivocal and the respondent understood the consequences, entering a conviction.
