2 total
The court excluded breath test results and acquitted the accused due to multiple Charter breaches including delayed roadside screening, improper device calibration, and arbitrary overnight detention.
The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The defence brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including: failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the roadside screening device demand; improper calibration of the approved screening device; failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel; and arbitrary detention following the investigation.
The court found multiple Charter breaches and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in acquittal.
The court dismissed the applicant's motion for a stay of proceedings, finding the 11-month delay reasonable.
The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay contrary to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams per one hundred millilitres of blood on November 8, 2011, and was charged on November 9, 2011.
The trial was scheduled for March 18-19, 2013, representing an overall delay of approximately 16 months and 9 days.
The applicant argued that Crown delay in providing disclosure and institutional delay totalled approximately 15 months and 10 days.
The Crown argued that after accounting for neutral intake and preparation periods, the actual attributable delay was approximately 8 months and 25 days.
The court found that Crown delay totalled approximately 111 days and institutional delay after trial date was set totalled approximately 7 months and 6 days, for a total of just under 11 months of attributable delay.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the delay, while significant, was not unreasonable in the context of a complex drinking and driving case involving Charter breaches and did not result in sufficient prejudice to warrant a stay of proceedings.
