This criminal appeal addressed whether the Crown must prove a lawful breath demand before relying on the Criminal Code evidentiary shortcuts for proving blood-alcohol concentration in an ‘over 80’ prosecution.
The majority held that lawful demand is not a precondition to ss. 258(1)(c) and (g), emphasizing the shortcuts’ purpose of efficiency and their focus on reliability conditions tied to breath sampling and analysis.
The dissent would have overruled prior authority and required compliance with s. 254(3) reasonable grounds as a precondition.
The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.
