The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred millilitres of blood.
The Crown called two police officers who testified regarding the traffic stop, the approved screening device test, and the subsequent breath samples provided at the police station.
The central issue was whether a proper demand pursuant to section 254(3) of the Criminal Code had been made.
The trial judge found that the officers had only made an approved screening device demand under section 254(2), not the required approved instrument demand under section 254(3).
The trial judge concluded that a proper demand under section 254(3) is a condition precedent to the admissibility of the breath certificate and that the Crown could not rely on the presumption of accuracy.
An acquittal was entered.
