The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.
The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but abandoned the sections 8 and 9 arguments before trial.
The court found no breach of the accused's section 10(b) right to counsel, rejecting arguments that police "funnelled" the accused to duty counsel or that the telephone consultation lacked privacy.
On the trial proper, the accused testified he consumed two double vodka drinks in the 10 minutes before leaving the restaurant, raising a bolus drinking defence.
The court rejected this evidence as incredible and unreliable, finding it inconsistent with the bartender's testimony and contrary to common sense.
The court convicted the accused based on the toxicology evidence and the common sense inference that people do not normally consume large quantities of alcohol immediately before driving.
