What does "forthwith" mean?

Section 254(2) of the Criminal Code reads:

(2)       If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has alcohol ... in their body and that the person has, within the preceding three hours, operated a motor vehicle ... the peace officer may, by demand, require the person ...

  (b)     to provide forthwith a sample of breath that, in the peace officer's opinion, will enable a proper analysis to be made by means of an approved screening device and, if necessary, to accompany the peace officer for that purpose.

Today's decision in R. v. Quansah, 2012 ONCA 123 decides what "forthwith" means:

[45]         In sum, I conclude that the immediacy requirement in s. 254(2) necessitates the courts to consider five things.  First, the analysis of the forthwith or immediacy requirement must always be done contextually.  Courts must bear in mind Parliament's intention to strike a balance between the public interest in eradicating driver impairment and the need to safeguard individual Charter rights.   

[46]         Second, the demand must be made by the police officer promptly once he or she forms the reasonable suspicion that the driver has alcohol in his or her body.  The immediacy requirement, therefore, commences at the stage of reasonable suspicion. 

[47]         Third, "forthwith" connotes a prompt demand and an immediate response, although in unusual circumstances a more flexible interpretation may be given.  In the end, the time from the formation of reasonable suspicion to the making of the demand to the detainee's response to the demand by refusing or providing a sample must be no more than is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to discharge his or her duty as contemplated by s. 254(2). 

[48]         Fourth, the immediacy requirement must take into account all the circumstances.  These may include a reasonably necessary delay where breath tests cannot immediately be performed because an ASD is not immediately available, or where a short delay is needed to ensure an accurate result of an immediate ASD test, or where a short delay is required due to articulated and legitimate safety concerns. These are examples of delay that is no more than is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to properly discharge his or her duty.  Any delay not so justified exceeds the immediacy requirement.

[49]         Fifth, one of the circumstances for consideration is whether the police could realistically have fulfilled their obligation to implement the detainee's s. 10(b) rights before requiring the sample.  If so, the "forthwith" criterion is not met.