The accused was charged with impaired care or control.
The Crown's case relied on blood test results obtained at a hospital without the accused's consent.
The defence sought to exclude the blood results based on alleged Charter breaches, including unlawful detention, delayed right to counsel, and failure to facilitate the accused's request to contact counsel.
The court found that while the initial order to exit the vehicle was lawful under the Waterfield test (justified to protect life), there were Charter breaches regarding the right to counsel.
The court excluded the blood evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was significant, particularly given the accused's vulnerability and explicit request for counsel that was not facilitated.
