The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.
The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results, alleging violations of Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).
The Crown established reasonable grounds for an approved screening device demand based on speeding, sudden maneuvers, odour of alcohol, red eyes, and information that the defendant had recently left a bar.
The court found no Charter breach despite a nine-minute delay in obtaining the device, as the delay was not foreseeable and occurred in three segments where the officer reasonably believed the device would arrive imminently.
The court also found no violation of the right to counsel, as there was no realistic opportunity to consult counsel during the roadside investigation.
The defendant was found guilty.
