Kevin Pitt

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a roadside stop and breath testing.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of breath evidence under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple breaches: a seven-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, denial of access to counsel of choice, arbitrary detention contrary to section 9, and failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel following the decision to detain for a show cause hearing.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel of choice but dismissed all applications for stay or exclusion of evidence, finding the accused guilty as charged.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A retired police officer discovered a vehicle in a ditch and spoke with two women at the scene.

The Crown's case rested primarily on eyewitness identification by the witness, circumstantial evidence, and alleged admissions by the accused.

The defence conceded the accused had been drinking but contested whether she was the driver.

The court found the eyewitness identification unreliable due to poor observation conditions, lack of corroborating details, and material discrepancies between the witness's description and the accused's appearance.

The charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt as to identity.