Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Arbitrary detention – Search and seizure – Offences – Elements of offence – Breathalyzer demand for sample of breath – Whether the demand for the applicant’s breath sample was made as soon as practicable as required by s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 – Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that where a breath sample demand was not made as soon as practicable by an arresting officer, a separate breath sample demand made by a breath technician was lawful – Charter ss. 8 and 9.

Following a motor vehicle accident, Cst. Campoli arrested the applicant for impaired driving at 7:36 p.m., and read him the right to counsel and caution at 7:51 p.m. She did not read him a breath sample demand until 8:36 p.m. The applicant then spoke with his lawyer until 9:04 p.m. Cst. Campoli informed the breath technician, Cst. Casey, of her grounds for arresting the applicant, specifically: the applicant had been involved in a traffic accident; she observed the odour of alcohol on his breath; she observed he was unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred, and he was unable to keep his head up. Cst. Casey testified that those were sufficient grounds for him to proceed with the testing procedure. Cst. Campoli then turned the applicant over to Cst. Casey for testing. Cst. Casey made his demand immediately following his formation of reasonable grounds to do so. Cst. Casey read the applicant his rights to counsel, caution to a charged person, secondary caution to a charged person, and the breathalyzer test demand. Cst. Casey administered two breath tests. The first sample recorded an alcohol/blood reading of 172 mg/100 ml; the second, 170 mg/100 ml. The applicant was convicted of three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and was sentenced to five years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.