The appellant, Faris Mumtaz, appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle with a prohibited blood/alcohol level.
The appeal focused on whether breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by the Criminal Code.
The trial judge had found the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time, despite inconsistencies in police officers' testimony regarding timelines and events.
The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings, emphasizing that the trial judge had the advantage of observing witnesses and was not obligated to reconcile all inconsistencies, particularly when the overall timeline of the investigation was reasonable.
The court reiterated that "as soon as practicable" means within a reasonably prompt time, not as soon as possible, and that police actions must be assessed for reasonableness within the totality of circumstances.
