The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and having over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.
Following a trial with a blended voir dire, the court considered whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand and whether the breath technician was required to have independent grounds.
The court found that the arresting officer had sufficient grounds based on observations of erratic driving, physical indicators of impairment, and odour of alcohol.
The court held that the breath demand was valid and that the breath technician need not have independent grounds, as the demand is a continuing one made by the arresting officer and administered by the technician in an agency capacity.
