Russell Walter Cornett

The accused was charged with impaired driving and exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

This was the second trial on the matter, the first having resulted in a mistrial.

The Crown invited dismissal of the impaired driving charge.

The court examined two key issues: whether breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" (ASAP) as required by section 258(1)(c)(ii), and whether the Crown could rely on the presumption of accuracy under section 258(1)(g).

The court found the ASAP requirement was met but could not rely on the presumption of accuracy due to a discrepancy between the alcohol standard lot number on the certificate and the lot number testified to by the breath technician.

Both counts were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and exceeding the legal limit contrary to the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a section 10(b) Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence, alleging violations of the right to counsel.

The court found a breach of the implementation component of section 10(b) because police failed to provide the accused with a list of lawyers or phonebook when he indicated he did not know any lawyers.

However, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breach was minor and inadvertent, the accused received legal advice from duty counsel, and the reliable breath evidence was essential to addressing the societal problem of impaired driving.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Following a traffic stop, the officer detained the accused for approximately ten minutes while waiting for an approved screening device (ASD) to arrive, without informing the accused of the reason for detention or his right to counsel.

The court found that the officer breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) by failing to make the ASD demand forthwith as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The officer's apparent belief that he could detain the accused indefinitely without explanation, combined with his lack of understanding regarding when detention obligations arise, led the court to exclude the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.