SCC Decision: July 27, 2007

Click here to link to the full judgment.

The accused struck and killed a pedestrian after consuming alcohol for several hours.  At trial, the judge found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to ask for a breath sample.  However, the judge stated that there was no strict requirement that the officer have evidence of impairment, as distinct from mere consumption, before asking for a breath sample.  The majority upheld the conviction, finding that the judge's reasons, when read in their entirety, applied the correct test and that he was relying on more than just evidence of consumption.  The minority disagreed, finding that the judge's clear language indicated that he used the wrong test.