The accused was stopped for speeding and driving with an expired licence.
The officer detected an odour of alcohol and made an approved screening device (ASD) demand.
The accused immediately rolled up his window, locked the doors, and refused to communicate, barricading himself in the vehicle for nearly an hour.
The accused argued the officer lacked grounds for the demand, that the officer's muting of his body-worn camera breached his s. 7 Charter rights, and that he relied on incorrect legal information from another officer (officially induced error).
The court rejected all defences, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion, the muted camera did not result in lost evidence, and the operative refusal occurred before the incorrect information was provided.
The accused was found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.
