The trial judge’s conclusion on that point is supported by the decision in R v. Latour, where in Charron J.A. stated, …….If the peace officer forms the required suspicion, he or she may make a demand that the person provide "forthwith" a sample of breath for analysis in an approved screening device. Of course, the peace officer who makes such a demand is under a duty to act upon it within the statutory limits. If, as the events actually unfold, the peace officer is in a position to require the person to provide the sample before there is any realistic opportunity to consult counsel, the statutory requirements are met. The detained person has no cause for complaint as the events will have unfolded in accordance with the legislative scheme and within its constitutional boundaries. I see no sound policy reason for requiring that the statutory requirements be met by design rather than by chance. Compliance is compliance whether fortuitous or otherwise.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.