The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood on June 19, 2010.
The defence challenged the validity of the approved screening device demand under section 8 of the Charter and sought exclusion of the breath test results under section 24(2).
The defence also argued that evidence of late consumption of alcohol (bolus drinking) immediately before the RIDE stop raised a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.
The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the demand and dismissed the Charter application.
On the trial issue, the court accepted the accused's evidence regarding his consumption pattern but found that "straddle evidence" (evidence showing blood alcohol concentration could have been either above or below the legal limit) was insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of identity under section 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code.
The accused was convicted.
