Martin Lamontagne

The accused appealed a decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal that set aside his acquittal and substituted a verdict of guilty.

The Crown brought a motion to quash the appeal.

The Supreme Court of Canada granted the motion, finding that the trial judge's acquittal was based solely on an unlawfully admitted medical report and that the Court of Appeal did not err in substituting a guilty verdict.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing bodily harm after a motor vehicle accident.

At the hospital, a police officer demanded a blood sample but failed to provide the medical assurances required under s. 254(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge excluded the blood evidence, finding the accused did not consent, and acquitted him.

The Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the demand was deficient and violated the Charter, consent is not an essential element under s. 254(3), and the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2) must be determined at a new trial.