The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.
The trial addressed several Charter issues, including the validity of a breath demand (s. 8), delay in reading rights to counsel (s. 10(b)), and a "Mok" issue concerning the monitoring and recording of the defendant's use of the toilet in a police cell (s. 8).
The court dismissed the challenges to the breath demand and the delay in reading rights, finding police actions reasonable.
However, the court found a Section 8 Charter violation regarding the toilet privacy, as the measures taken (fogging video, blanket provision without instruction) were inadequate to ensure a reasonable degree of privacy.
Despite the violation, the court denied a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence, concluding there was no sufficient causal or temporal connection between the Charter breach and the obtaining of the breath samples or other evidence.
The defendant was found guilty of impaired operation, and the excess alcohol count was stayed on the Kienapple principle.
