impaired driving – absence of evidence of breathalyzer demand – conviction at trial overturned on appeal – held: “I conclude that there was insufficient evidence from which the trial judge could reasonably infer that a proper demand for a breathalyzer test in accordance with s. 254(3)(a) had been made. As a result, one of the conditions precedent for admissibility of the Certificate of Analyses was not met and the Certificate should not have been admitted”.

On December 9, 2004 Provincial Judge S.R. Creagh convicted the Appellant of operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol content (s. 253(b) Criminal Code). The Appellant appeals from this decision.

While other grounds of appeal were argued, I will deal principally with one argument that is dispositive of the appeal. Essentially, the focus of this decision is whether there was sufficient evidence of a proper demand for a breathalyzer test to satisfy one of the two conditions precedent for the admissibility of breath test results by way of Certificate of Analyses.