This decision addresses multiple Charter issues arising from an impaired driving investigation, including voluntariness of statements, grounds and timing for an approved screening device (ASD) demand, and the right to counsel under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.
The court found the accused’s statements involuntary due to an inducement by police, but upheld the ASD demand as lawful with reasonable suspicion and no Charter breach in timing or delay in providing the right to counsel.
The accused was found to be the driver in care and control of the vehicle and impaired by alcohol beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in convictions on both impaired operation and BAC ’80 plus’ charges.
