The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while exceeding the legal blood alcohol content under section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.
The accused challenged the admissibility of breath analysis evidence, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 9.
The court found that the investigating officers had reasonable suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds to demand breath samples, that the detention was not arbitrary, and that no Charter violations occurred.
The court convicted the accused based on toxicological evidence and the totality of circumstances demonstrating impairment.
