The defendant was charged with impaired operation and operating a vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit.
He sought to exclude evidence due to alleged Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 10(b)) related to muted police body-worn cameras and delays in approved screening device (ASD) and approved instrument demands.
The court found no s. 7 breach, as there was no prejudice to the right to make full answer and defence.
It also found no s. 8 breach regarding the immediacy of the demands.
While the Crown conceded a s. 8 breach regarding ASD availability (due to R. v. Breault), the court found the breach minor and admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, citing good faith police conduct and minimal impact on the accused's rights.
The defendant was found guilty of operating with a blood-alcohol concentration above the legal limit but not guilty of impaired operation.
