The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mgs.
At trial, the judge excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the traffic stop was arbitrary.
In reaching this conclusion, the trial judge relied on extraneous information regarding the arresting officer's receipt of awards for apprehending impaired drivers, which was not entered into evidence.
The Superior Court of Justice held that the trial judge erred in law by relying on this extraneous information, as it did not meet the test for judicial notice and could have affected the assessment of the officer's credibility.
The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.