The appellant appealed her conviction for driving 'over 80'.
At trial, the defence failed to object to the admissibility of the Intoxilizer test results until closing submissions, arguing the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds because she referred to the screening device as an 'Alcotest' rather than an approved screening device.
The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in entertaining the late Charter challenge.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that absent credible evidence to the contrary, an officer's testimony that they used an approved screening device is sufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand.
The appeal was dismissed.
