The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg following a motor vehicle collision.
At trial, the accused argued that his section 8 Charter rights were violated because the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the roadside screening demand, and that his section 10(b) rights were violated due to a 27-minute delay in facilitating access to counsel.
The court found the officer had a reasonable suspicion based on the collision, the accused's slurred speech, and glassy eyes, dismissing the section 8 claim.
While the Crown conceded the section 10(b) breach, the court applied the Grant framework and declined to exclude the breath evidence under section 24(2).
The accused was convicted.
