The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.
The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.
The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.
The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.
