Jonathan Lapid

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

Private investigators observed the accused driving erratically and called 911.

The arresting officer stopped the accused and noted an odour of alcohol, but no physical signs of intoxication.

Breath tests revealed a blood alcohol concentration significantly over the legal limit.

A forensic toxicologist testified that anyone with such readings would have an impaired ability to drive.

The court found that despite the lack of physical symptoms, the erratic driving and expert evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

At trial, the arresting officer testified about the roadside screening device failure but failed to give evidence that a formal breath demand was made before the breathalyzer tests at the station.

The court held that evidence of a valid breath demand is a statutory pre-condition to the admissibility of the Certificate of Analysis.

Alternatively, taking breath samples without a demand violated section 8 of the Charter, and the evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was found not guilty.