The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg/100ml.
At trial, the accused argued that the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand was not made 'forthwith' due to an unexplained six-minute delay between the officer demonstrating the device and the accused providing a sample.
The court found that this unexplained delay violated the accused's rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.
Applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court excluded the breath test results, concluding that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The accused was found not guilty.
