The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with a breath demand under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.
The trial involved a directed verdict application and a Charter application alleging violations under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).
The court found that while the directed verdict application was dismissed, the defendant's refusal to provide a breath sample was provisional only, pending access to counsel.
The police failed to meet the reasonable diligence standard by denying the defendant's repeated requests for access to the internet to find private counsel.
The court found no actus reus for the refusal offence and acquitted the defendant.
