The accused was stopped for erratic driving and admitted to consuming alcohol.
The police officer demanded a breath sample for an approved screening device, which the accused unequivocally refused.
The summary conviction appeal judge acquitted the accused, holding that a valid demand under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code requires the device to be immediately ready and the officer to explain the consequences of refusal.
The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and restored the conviction, finding that s. 254(2) does not mandate these prerequisites, particularly when the accused outright refuses to provide a sample.
