The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.
The Crown proceeded summarily and the parties agreed to a statement of facts establishing that the accused operated a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration between 150 and 195 milligrams per 100 millilitres.
The sole issue was whether the accused possessed the necessary mens rea.
The accused testified that she believed her drink had been spiked with a date-rape drug, claiming she had no memory of consuming most of the alcohol and that her symptoms were inconsistent with voluntary alcohol consumption.
The court found the accused guilty, distinguishing the case from R. v. Sitarz on the basis that while the accused's belief was genuine, it did not raise a reasonable doubt as to her guilt.
