The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on charges of impaired driving and driving over 80.
The trial judge had excluded the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and failed to make the breath demand as soon as practicable.
The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by requiring the facts to be exclusively consistent with alcohol impairment to form reasonable grounds, and misapprehended the evidence regarding the timeline of the breath demand.
A new trial was ordered.
