The appellant challenged a roadside driving prohibition imposed under a provincial automatic roadside prohibition regime, arguing that a screening-device result could not alone establish reasonable grounds to believe driving ability was affected by alcohol.
The Court held that the governing provision was unambiguous and that an officer may rely on a valid screening-device result without separate confirmatory evidence, provided the officer honestly accepts the result’s reliability.
It rejected the submission that constitutional values could be used to manufacture ambiguity where the statutory text, context, and objectives point to one reading.
The Court further confirmed that the provincial regulatory regime is independent from the federal criminal regime, even though it is triggered by a roadside demand under criminal legislation.
The appeal was dismissed and the prohibition upheld.
