The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand following a serious collision on Highway 400.
The Crown's case on dangerous driving relied on circumstantial evidence of excessive speeding and alcohol consumption.
The court found that while speeding alone on a multi-lane highway with light traffic, even combined with prior alcohol consumption, did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care required for criminal liability.
The court acquitted on the dangerous driving charge but convicted on the refusal charge, finding that the defendant's conduct in the ambulance—becoming silent, unresponsive, physically rigid, and locking his arms—constituted an implied refusal to comply with the lawful ASD demand.
