The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The defence challenged the validity of the approved screening device and Intoxilyzer demands on Charter grounds, arguing the officer lacked reasonable suspicion and that the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.
The court found the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the smell of alcohol, glazed eyes, and the accused's admission of coming from a bar.
The court rejected the argument that the officer was required to inquire about mouth alcohol before administering the test.
The court also found the samples were taken as soon as practicable despite a 17-minute delay at the police station.
The accused was convicted.