The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.
The Crown's case relied on breath test results and toxicological evidence.
The court had previously ruled that the accused's Charter rights were violated during the investigation, removing the Crown's access to statutory presumptions of identity and accuracy.
The Crown was therefore required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the breath test results were accurate and that the accused's blood-alcohol concentration at the time of driving exceeded the legal limit.
The court found that the Crown met this burden, rejecting the defence arguments regarding bolus drinking and the reliability of the toxicological assumptions.
