On December 9, 2009 officers were dispatched to a report of two youths drinking alcohol on Cameron Road in Inverness County. A vehicle was stopped and when the officer approached it he immediately noticed a very strong odour of burnt marijuana. When the driver, Mr. MacDonald, was asked if he had been consuming alcohol his response was, "No, just smoking weed" and the impaired by drug investigation was on. The trial commenced on February 25th, 2011 and had four further continuation dates as the court had to consider a number of applications, motions and rulings. The Crown called three witnesses - the investigating officer, the drug recognition officer and a witness from the RCMP toxicology section in Halifax. Defence challenged the toxicologist's expertise with respect to being an expert in drug evaluation and classification but the Court ruled that she was qualified to testify in that area. The Court declared the drug recognition officer a "section 254(3.1) evaluating officer". The Court then went further in declaring that the drug recognition officer was able to give opinion evidence "regarding the processes' to determine whether a driver's ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by a drug or drugs and what category of drugs are causing the impairment". That area was challenged by defence who argued that qualifying the officer in that area would be allowing the drug recognition officer to give evidence about the "ultimate issue" before the court. The Court rejected that argument:
"On the issue of such expertise going to the ultimate issue, I found that the proper scrutiny was given in this case."
"The issue of impairment by a drug requires for the assistance of the Court's ultimate decision expert evidence of the nature Constable Skinner can provide and he is so qualified. As always, such is open to challenge, scrutiny and his evidence becomes a matter of weight."
The Court did conclude that the oral statements that Mr. MacDonald made during the "statements" step of the drug evaluation violated Mr. MacDonald's section 7 Charter right to remain silent. The drug recognition officer asked Mr. MacDonald four questions and recorded the four answers on the Drug Influence Sheet. Those four questions and answers were excluded from evidence at the trial pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter. However the Court did conclude that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. MacDonald was guilty of driving while impaired by drug. The Court repeated the Supreme Court's definition of impaired driving in R. v. Stellato as being "any degree of impairment from slight to great" and then concluded that the combined evidence from the three Crown witnesses had proven that while he was operating his motor vehicle Mr. MacDonald was under the influence of cannabis to a degree that his ability to drive was impaired. R. v. MacDonald, 2012 NSPC 26