The accused was charged with operating a vessel while impaired by alcohol and exceeding the legal blood-alcohol limit.
At trial, the accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the police boarding of his boat, detention, and search.
The accused argued the boat was his dwelling-house and that police required a warrant under the Feeney principles.
The court found that while the accused had a reduced expectation of privacy on his boat at a public dock in the early afternoon, the officer breached the accused's section 8 rights by failing to announce his presence before boarding.
However, the court found no breach of section 9 rights and, applying the section 24(2) test from R. v. Grant, admitted the breath sample evidence as the breach was inadvertent and minor, the impact on the accused's privacy interests was minimal, and there was a strong societal interest in resolving impaired boating cases on their merits.
