The accused was tried on impaired operation and over 80 charges arising from a rear-end collision, departure from the scene, and later police observations of alcohol consumption.
The court rejected Charter challenges alleging unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, and language-based breaches of the rights to be informed of and to exercise counsel, holding that the accused was proficient in English and that no special circumstances required additional interpretive measures.
Although the arresting officer delayed reading the breath demand, the court held the qualified breath technician lawfully made the demand as soon as practicable upon forming reasonable grounds.
The court found the evidence insufficient to prove impaired operation beyond a reasonable doubt, but admitted the breath readings and convicted on the over 80 count.
