While the police officer’s assumption that he needed to wait to administer the ASD test because Mr. Pawlivsky was chewing gum was found by the appeal judge to objectively unreasonable, the officer nonetheless honestly believed he was acting appropriately. It follows from the officer’s honest belief in the need to delay the administration of the ASD that he also believed Mr. Pawlivsky’s s. 10(b) rights to be suspended during that period of time. While “ignorance of Charter standards must not be rewarded or encouraged” there is nothing on the record to show that the police officer was acting in bad faith – on the contrary, he wanted to ensure the test results were reliable. R. v. Pawlivsky, 2020 SKCA 75