A woman who argued that she failed a roadside Breathalyzer test because she used mouthwash - not because she was drunk - has had her appeal of a 90-day driving ban rejected by a B.C. Supreme Court justice.
Tina Anastasia Lanzi Ricard was stopped in a roadblock by North Vancouver RCMP on Nov. 24, 2012 at around 11:30 p.m. The police officer at the scene said he smelled a "strong odour of liquor" on Ricard's breath, and that she had a red face and bloodshot eyes.
The officer said Ricard told him she'd had "half a glass of wine. .. an hour or two hours prior," according to court documents.
Ricard failed two roadside breath tests, and was handed an immediate 90-day driving suspension.
Ricard applied for a review of the decision.
At a hearing in December 2012, Ricard gave her version of events in an affidavit, saying that "her eyes were bloodshot and her face red from the combination of crying and smoking" and that the police officer must have confused that with symptoms of being drunk.
She said she had also used mouthwash just prior to the first test and that the police officer "must have confused the smell of alcohol from the mouthwash with the smell of alcohol on her breath."
After the adjudicator for the province upheld the driving ban, Ricard appealed to the court.
Ricard argued that she failed the first test because of the mouthwash. Because of that, she argued she hadn't been provided with the right to two reliable tests and her driving ban should be tossed out.
But the judge didn't agree.
In upholding the 90-day ban, Justice Jane Dardi ruled the Motor Vehicle Act only requires that one test be reliable.
She added she was not persuaded that it was unreasonable for the adjudicator to uphold the driving ban.
