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.
