The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing death after striking a pedestrian.
At trial, the appellant applied to exclude breath samples, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to demand them because there was evidence of alcohol consumption but not impairment.
The trial judge admitted the evidence and convicted the appellant.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the trial judge made a misstatement regarding the requirement for evidence of impairment, his reasons read as a whole demonstrated he applied the correct legal test and relied on a combination of objective facts, including the circumstances of the accident, to find reasonable and probable grounds.
