The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single-vehicle collision on Highway 401.
The Crown established that the accused was the driver of the damaged vehicle through circumstantial evidence, including possession of car keys, proximity to the vehicle, and flight from the scene.
The court found the accused guilty of both charges.
The court rejected Charter arguments regarding sections 8, 9, and 10(b), finding that the 13-minute delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel was a technical breach with no serious impact.
The court also rejected the defence argument that the accused's subsequent offer to provide a breath sample after being charged negated the refusal offence, finding the offer was not genuine and the officer was justified in declining it.