The accused was charged with Over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code arising from an incident on March 16, 2013 in Ottawa.
The sole issue was whether the Crown established that the accused understood the demand under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.
The defence argued that the officer's failure to record the accused's response to the demand in his notes meant the Crown failed to establish this pre-condition to admissibility of the breath sample evidence.
The court found that the officer's testimony that the accused indicated understanding, combined with the accused's compliance with the demand without confusion, was sufficient to establish understanding.
The court declined to follow R. v. Brown and found the demand was sufficiently expressed and understood.
The accused was found guilty.
