The Administration of Justice In Disrepute

While I have nothing especially insightful or profound to say about Rick Vaive's acquittal on drunk driving charges, I must confess to a certain perplexity pertaining to the following:

All considered, [Justice] Hourigan said she believed Vaive when he said he was exhausted, not drunk, the night of July 14, 2009. So despite the fact a breathalyzer test — administered outside the required two-hour time frame — showed Vaive had twice the legal limit in his system that night, Hourigan acquitted him of impaired driving charges in Newmarket court Thursday afternoon.

Has a new legal standard or precedent been established? If impaired individuals truly believe, when getting behind the wheel, that they are in complete control of their faculties, do they now have a legitimate defense against impaired driving charges, objective breathalyzer results notwithstanding?

For the sake and safety of all of us, I sincerely hope that the Crown appeals this verdict.