S. Price

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer readings under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding s. 8 and s. 9 breaches because the Approved Screening Device (ASD) used by the police officer was two days past its calibration date.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the finding of the Charter breaches but found the trial judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis, particularly regarding the impact of the breach.

The appeal court admitted the evidence, set aside the acquittal, and entered a conviction.

The appellant appealed her summary convictions for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

She argued the trial judge erred in dismissing her Charter applications under s. 10(b), alleging police failed to assist her in contacting her counsel of choice and failed to provide adequate privacy during her consultation with duty counsel.

She also argued the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence regarding her impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law, concluding the appellant's belief that she lacked privacy was not reasonably held.

The appeal was dismissed.