The defendant was charged with having an excess blood alcohol concentration.
The trial involved a Charter application challenging the roadside breath screening, the arrest based on an approved screening device (ASD) result, and the breath demand.
The court found reasonable grounds for the roadside screening.
However, it found violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter due to insufficient evidence regarding the functionality and proper operation of the ASD, leading to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand.
Despite these breaches, the court applied the s. 24(2) Grant test and decided not to exclude the breath readings, finding the breaches of modest seriousness and minimal impact on the defendant's Charter interests, while society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.
Separately, the court ruled that photocopies of the Certificate of Qualified Technician and Intoxilyzer Printouts were inadmissible due to lack of authentication.
Ultimately, the court had a reasonable doubt about the defendant's blood alcohol concentration and acquitted him.