The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80 after civilians observed him asleep at the wheel and swerving continuously.
The accused raised Charter challenges under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b), and argued breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.
The court dismissed the ss. 8 and 10(a) claims and found the breath samples were taken expeditiously.
Although the Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach regarding the implementational duty to wait for counsel of choice, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the accused spoke to duty counsel and his counsel of choice never called back.
The accused was found guilty on both counts.
