The accused was charged with impaired operation and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.
The accused challenged the reliability of the Intoxilyzer results, arguing the machine had previously registered diagnostic failures, and alleged a breach of section 8 of the Charter on the basis that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.
The court rejected both arguments, finding the Intoxilyzer was in proper working order and the officer had sufficient grounds based on the accused's poor driving and physical indicia of impairment.
The accused was found guilty of both offences.
