The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.
He argued the trial judge erred in her s. 24(2) Charter analysis by admitting breath sample evidence despite finding breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) rights, and that the breath technician's certificate was defective.
The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's Grant analysis was adequate and entitled to deference, as the breaches were not serious and the admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The court also held that the certificate's deficiencies could not be raised for the first time on appeal and were cured by other evidence at trial.
