The accused was charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol concentration over 80.
At trial, the Crown conceded the impaired operation charge.
The accused brought a Charter application arguing his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights were breached.
The court found that the arresting officer lacked objective grounds for the arrest and breath demand, breaching ss. 8 and 9.
The court also found a s. 10(b) breach because police failed to identify the accused when leaving voicemails for his counsel of choice.
However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the breath evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breaches were not serious and had minimal impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.
The accused was found guilty of the 80 plus charge.
