Refusal trial. Following a collision accused failed to provide adequate breath samples into a screening device. Issue regarding mens rea and whether a reasonable excuse had been provided.

Held: Conviction entered.

As per Ennis, 2015 ABPC 9, the Crown is only required to prove that the accused intended the acts which resulted in non-compliance. Proof that the accused intended the result of non-compliance is not needed. Regarding reasonable excuse, the accused testified that his physical condition (which was not complained of to police at the time) following the collision prevented him from providing adequate samples. “I find that the issue of ‘reasonable excuse’ has not been brought ‘into play.’ The Crown is not required in this case to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of a reasonable excuse.”

J. Lutz, Defence Counsel