The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breath demand.
The court found a breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel due to a 10-minute delay after arrest, but declined to exclude evidence under s. 24(2).
The court found the accused guilty of both offences, concluding that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and that he intentionally refused to provide a suitable breath sample without a valid medical excuse.
