Law360 Canada ( August 1, 2025, 3:16 PM EDT) -- Appeal by Westgard from her conviction for having a blood alcohol concentration that exceeded the legal limit within two hours of ceasing to operate a conveyance (“over 80”). Westgard was stopped by the constable for driving with an expired licence plate. During the stop, the officer demanded a breath sample from Westgard using an approved screening device (ASD). Westgard initially questioned the demand but eventually complied, registering a “fail” reading. She was subsequently arrested and taken to the police station, where further tests confirmed her blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit. Westgard was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired and having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit within two hours of driving. At her summary conviction trial in the Provincial Court, Westgard was acquitted of impaired operation but found guilty of the “over 80” offence. She appealed the conviction to the Court of King’s Bench, which dismissed her appeal. Westgard then sought leave to appeal, arguing that the summary conviction appeal court (“SCAC”) judge made errors in upholding the trial decision. Westgard’s appeal raised four legal questions: the constitutionality of s. 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”); whether the Crown was required to tender both a Certificate of Qualified Technician (CQT) and a Certificate of Analyst (CA) to rely on the presumption in s. 320.31(1) of the Code; the interpretation of “reasonable notice” in s. 320.32(2) of the Code; and, whether the SCAC judge erred in upholding the trial judge’s conclusion that the police complied with the immediacy requirement in s. 320.27(2) of the Code....