The accused was charged with impaired operation and "over 80" following a traffic stop.
The accused challenged the lawfulness of the approved screening device (ASD) demand and breath sample demand on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).
The court found that while there was a breach of section 10(a) (failure to inform promptly of reasons for detention), the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The court found the accused guilty of "over 80" and conditionally stayed the impaired driving charge.
