R. v. Belanger, 2013 ONCA 349

ENDORSEMENT

1Assuming without deciding that the summary conviction appeal court judge was correct in concluding that the informational component of s. 10(b) was breached, we are satisfied that the summary conviction appeal court judge erred in law in concluding, without any meaningful analysis of the Grant lines of inquiry, that the results of the breath test should have been excluded as evidence.

2In our view, a proper characterization of any breach of the informational component of s. 10(b) that might have occurred was that the breach was relatively minor, especially in light of the subsequent contact of the respondent with duty counsel facilitated by the arresting officer. A proper consideration of the three lines of inquiry under Grant, and more importantly the balancing required under Grant, mandated the admission, not the exclusion of the breath test results as evidence.

3In the result, leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed, the order of the summary conviction appeal court judge is set aside, and the conviction entered and sentence imposed at trial reinstated.