The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a traffic stop.
The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample test results, alleging breaches of Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b), specifically regarding the timing of the roadside screening demand, the timing of breath samples, and the adequacy of rights to counsel advisement in a language he understood.
The court found that the roadside demand was made forthwith, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, and the police took reasonable steps to ensure the accused understood his rights to counsel in Mandarin.
The court admitted the evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts, with the impaired driving count stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.
