The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.
The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples, statements, and observations, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).
The court found that the police failed to make a formal breath demand as required by section 320.28(1) of the Criminal Code, delayed implementation of the right to counsel beyond the earliest reasonable opportunity, and that a breath technician undermined the accused's confidence in duty counsel.
Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath test results, statements regarding alcohol consumption, and observations made at the police station, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
