Accused found guilty of impaired driving based on pre-arrest observations despite exclusion of post-arrest evidence.
The accused was charged with impaired operation and 'over 80'.
An off-duty police officer observed the accused pushing a damaged vehicle in live traffic and arrested him, but failed to provide a complete right to counsel caution.
A second officer subsequently breached the implementation component of s. 10(b) by asking investigative questions before the accused had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.
The court excluded post-arrest evidence, including a video recording, under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
However, based on the off-duty officer's pre-arrest observations of the accused's unsafe operation of the vehicle, unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, and red, watery eyes, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.
OCJCourt of JusticeJun 2, 2026
